Reading the comments in here ... IDK ... perhaps we've reached that stage where a large percentage--perhaps even a majority--of people have effectively forgotten what it means to own stuff. I...
Reading the comments in here ... IDK ... perhaps we've reached that stage where a large percentage--perhaps even a majority--of people have effectively forgotten what it means to own stuff.
I mean, when did we get to the point that people seriously think an advertising company deserves any say whatsoever in what we do with our own phones?
This company's entire reason for existing is to sell advertising space to companies, and to credibly convince those companies that their ads will be seen by a lot of people who are predisposed to spend money because of those ads.
Where does "protecting phone owners from themselves" enter into that equation?
this is how we will own nothing and be happy (about that, at least): being incapable of wielding the benefits of ownership while the responsibility of it gets loaded onto us continuously I wonder...
this is how we will own nothing and be happy (about that, at least): being incapable of wielding the benefits of ownership while the responsibility of it gets loaded onto us continuously
I wonder if people will ever realize how much they're being manipulated
No shade on you personally, but I think it's worth remembering that the context of this phrase includes being frequently referenced by neo-Nazis on 4chan. From Wikipedia:
we will own nothing and be happy
No shade on you personally, but I think it's worth remembering that the context of this phrase includes being frequently referenced by neo-Nazis on 4chan. From Wikipedia:
Adrian Monck, the WEF's managing director, traced the phrase's mimetic origin to a 4chan post which read, "Own nothing, be happy — The Jew World Order 2030". According to Monck, during the pandemic, far-right groups and individuals started pushing the phrase on 4chan and its /pol/ board to promote a conspiracy theory that the pandemic was "orchestrated" by the WEF "to take control of the global economy"; the phrase became viral and was spread by sources including Fox News and Sky News Australia, and popular content creators like Russell Brand shared it with their audiences.
The very Wikipedia page you linked provides an image that uses the phrase, and it doesn't say the image is a fake or anything like that but is supposedly an official image. So 4chan didn't even...
The very Wikipedia page you linked provides an image that uses the phrase, and it doesn't say the image is a fake or anything like that but is supposedly an official image. So 4chan didn't even coin the phrase, and they certainly don't have ownership over the rights to lambast it. The fact that they attached it to their own ridiculous ethnic/racist conspiracies shouldn't prevent anyone else from being able to use it anymore than you shouldn't be able to use a keyboard because people on 4chan also use keyboards.
I never said they did. I said it was an important part of context, and I stand by that. And I think it's a bit silly to frame this as a "Hitler ate sugar" argument when it was significant enough...
So 4chan didn't even coin the phrase,
I never said they did. I said it was an important part of context, and I stand by that. And I think it's a bit silly to frame this as a "Hitler ate sugar" argument when it was significant enough to warrant documentation in Wikipedia, not to mention removing media from the WEF's site due to the threats sent to Ida Auken for it.
It's pretty apparent to me that neo-Nazi pushing of this phrase has been common enough that it's a determining factor in why it's still remembered and used so often today. Besides, if it were being remembered for more mundane reasons, it'd probably get used in contexts far more relevant to the article it came from, rather than for unrelated topics like this one.
Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, I don't think it's even a conspiracy per se, let alone the work of conniving what-have-yous, just to clarify. But the colonial engine goes brrrrr with...
Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, I don't think it's even a conspiracy per se, let alone the work of conniving what-have-yous, just to clarify. But the colonial engine goes brrrrr with or without a guiding hand, and conspiratorial messaging is remarkably efficient for this scope of issue, if you simply assume that "it's actually all those uppity [insert minority group]!" is never the answer.
I do think conspiratorial language is more likely to help conspiracies than it is to help understanding of the magnitudes of actual problems, unfortunately; it's efficient because it relies on a...
I do think conspiratorial language is more likely to help conspiracies than it is to help understanding of the magnitudes of actual problems, unfortunately; it's efficient because it relies on a conspiracy theory, which is inherently overly simplistic and untrue. So I feel that's a very risky tactic. I agree otherwise, though!
I do my best to deploy it contradictorily, hoping to inspire people to go digging for how I'm wrong, if that helps your peace of mind. Otherwise, I guess my thinking is that conspiracy theories...
I do my best to deploy it contradictorily, hoping to inspire people to go digging for how I'm wrong, if that helps your peace of mind. Otherwise, I guess my thinking is that conspiracy theories form out of latent storytelling structures and unsatisfactory understanding when a thinker is stressed, and are reinforced into belief upon contact with external validation. However, because of that reliance on assumption and the inherent differences in each believer's lack of knowledge, it's highly likely (outside the context of people putting themselves into filter bubbles and engineered propaganda campaigns) that the actually-held beliefs carry little to no correlation with one another. That's wiggle room to undermine from. If that makes sense.
Worked on me! I had a bug in my brain over that phrase for a while now since I first heard it from someone I know who watched Russell Brand (ew), but your comment was what got me to look it up....
hoping to inspire people to go digging
Worked on me! I had a bug in my brain over that phrase for a while now since I first heard it from someone I know who watched Russell Brand (ew), but your comment was what got me to look it up.
I've had similar thoughts about conspiracy theories more generally though myself; I've described them several times before as people "wanting to believe they're the main character in a story," so I definitely agree with you there. Yours was a fantastic way to phrase it too, by the way. Much more succinct than I've ever put it.
I've recently joined another company (due to an acquisition) and I can no longer use the Outlook app with the new policy standards, because my hardened GrapheneOS is flagged as rooted, courtesy of...
I've recently joined another company (due to a monopolistic takeover an acquisition) and I can no longer use the Outlook app with the new policy standards, because my hardened GrapheneOS is flagged as rooted, courtesy of the Microsoft Intune app. Ironically, I can open Outlook in my phone's browser without issues.
I know the unverified bs for Google is coming, but as a GenXer who maybe is just old and yelling at kids to get off my lawn and turn their music down, I also figured how to not get wrecked by downloading questionable items on Napster, or using sketchy stuff like my first jailbroken smart phone (iPhone 3GS), or refusing to actually use programs, apps, or any technology that could actually make my life more convenient but at the sake of privacy and becoming the product being sold.
I find it amusing that as a kid, I thought integrity was standing up for your personal rights for which you should be responsible (with ongoing events (edited for typo) [and themes like the Cold War, punk rock, Robin Hood mentality, etc.]), and now I see in hindsight that it was. But I guess society in general thought we won that battle somehow, and now we can relax and let someone else take over.
I agree with the idea of having these measures in place to protect people from scams. I'd definitely change a bunch of things, but broadly speaking some of them are good measures. But you're...
I agree with the idea of having these measures in place to protect people from scams. I'd definitely change a bunch of things, but broadly speaking some of them are good measures. But you're right, since I also agree that an advertising company has no place playing gatekeeper.
In theory, this system of obstacles could be a good one, but there is no universe in which it's acceptable for Google to be the arbiter of it.
There are plenty of products that are regulated to protect people from themselves. Food and drugs are regulated. Cars are regulated. Don’t let the libertarians fool you, this is totally normal.
There are plenty of products that are regulated to protect people from themselves. Food and drugs are regulated. Cars are regulated. Don’t let the libertarians fool you, this is totally normal.
"Libertarians"? I stand with the others - I'm insulted by this comment. This is not a libertarian stance. This is very clearly a way for Google to give themselves just a bit more control over the...
"Libertarians"? I stand with the others - I'm insulted by this comment. This is not a libertarian stance. This is very clearly a way for Google to give themselves just a bit more control over the platform under the guise of safety, which, if you haven't noticed, has very much been their M.O. for the past few decades. And they've been very successful. Have you seen any successful open source RCS clients out there? Remind me how many web rendering engines there are that aren't Chromium based again. Google, just like any other megacorporation out there, is going to try to control everything - it's just trying to do it slowly so people don't object to it so much.
People keep saying that, but I've never seen any evidence that Google's motivations aren't what they say they are. It's just a populist conspiracy making the rounds because people want to believe.
This is very clearly a way for Google to give themselves just a bit more control over the platform under the guise of safety
People keep saying that, but I've never seen any evidence that Google's motivations aren't what they say they are. It's just a populist conspiracy making the rounds because people want to believe.
Google ruling Android with an iron fist isn't new, and if you don't see it, I suspect you aren't looking for it. Not every instance is in the name of security, sometimes they claim to fight for...
Exemplary
Google ruling Android with an iron fist isn't new, and if you don't see it, I suspect you aren't looking for it. Not every instance is in the name of security, sometimes they claim to fight for developers in the name of fragmentation.
But dictating which of their apps appear where on a brand new Android handset, regardless of who it's sold by, is control. Telling OEMs they will either release Android (TM) handsets, or AOSP-derived operating systems, but not both, is control. Letting core AOSP apps wither and die, while pushing their proprietary apps, is control. Releasing their proprietary Play Integrity API, instead of building it into AOSP, is control.
Ars called it over a decade ago [0]. Then they added a few updates as their article made the rounds in 2018, because it was still so relevant, it wasn't worth updating - not enough had changed to warrant more than minor revisions. Now, in 2026, Google continues to centralize control
Android is Google's operating system. Everyone else just lives there.
I largely agree with how you describe what's going on. But it depends what you mean by "Android." Yes, Google does control what OEM's do by making requirements on them in order to install the Play...
I largely agree with how you describe what's going on. But it depends what you mean by "Android."
Yes, Google does control what OEM's do by making requirements on them in order to install the Play Store and Google apps on their devices. The EU has fined them for this when they go too far. But it seems like it still leaves quite a bit of freedom for OEM's to do their own thing? I haven't been all that interested in whatever Samsung is doing, but it's sounds like it's pretty far from the stock OS?
Also, that's different from controlling what other companies do with open source Android code. There are alternatives that don't have the Play Store (most often seen in China).
Your charactization of Google "[l]etting core AOSP apps wither and die" is kinda odd because AOSP doesn't have to be a complete OS for others to build on it, and the sample apps don't have to be very good to demonstrate how it works. If we want to see an Android OS not controlled by Google, shouldn't it be someone else building and maintaining those apps rather than being dependent on Google to do it for them?
Maybe the alternatives will improve now that AI makes it easier to do.
OEMs use Google's Android, or they are pushed out of the market. One of the richest companies in the history of the world tried to take AOSP to market without Google [0]. They offered free,...
Exemplary
But it seems like it still leaves quite a bit of freedom for OEM's to do their own thing?
OEMs use Google's Android, or they are pushed out of the market.
One of the richest companies in the history of the world tried to take AOSP to market without Google [0]. They offered free, 24-hour-a-day customer support for any questions their customers had, and had every incentive to keep at it and improve year-over-year to attempt to build an ecosystem. Nobody can seriously argue Jeff Bezos is unable or unwilling (when he sees long-term benefit) to play the long game.
For years, [Amazon] lost money. A lot of money. On purpose. Jeff Bezos knew that the key to long-term dominance wasn’t in short-term profits—it was in reinvesting every dollar back into infrastructure, customer experience, and market expansion. He played the long game.
But despite being the juggernaught that was 2014-era Amazon, the Fire Phone isn't for sale today. They had to partner with Foxconn, because no other OEM was legally able to bulid the device - and that's despite not insisting on their flagship product using modern-for-the-time specs, even as Bezos himself apparently wanted "a phone which could set itself apart, could compete against established phone manufactures such as Apple, and a lower-cost, bare-bones phone would hurt the Amazon brand." [2]
There are alternatives that don't have the Play Store
And they exist exclusively in China. Per Ars' article (emphasis mine) in my previous comment:
"Devices may only be distributed if all Google Applications authorized for distribution in the applicable territory are pre-installed on the device.” Google doesn’t do business in China, so there are no “authorized Google Applications” for that territory. This creates a loophole specifically for China, where OEMs can basically do whatever they want in the country without running afoul of Google’s anti-fragmentation rules."
And consumers won't stand for a phone that doesn't support their banking app, Netflix, Snapchat, and more. Google made Google Play Services a dependency of their Play Integrity API. If Amazon tried to release a new phone tomorrow, they wouldn't even be able to leverage AOSP compatibility - people don't want a phone that can't order an Uber or use the McDonalds app. This is Google making AOSP useless to any OEM that wants to sell to a Western audience; they will use Android, and all the restrictions and requirements that entails, or they will use nothing. This is Google exerting control.
AOSP doesn't have to be a complete OS for others to build on it
No, but any OEM that wants to take that chance faces a choice: they can gain proficiency in manufacturing, and build a reputation from selling Android, but they cannot even attempt to compete with their own AOSP fork while continuing that. To attempt to use non-Android AOSP is a bet-the-company move, so it should be no surprise almost none have jumped.
Google locking up OEMs by preventing them from competing with Android is control
Maybe the alternatives will improve now that AI makes it easier to do.
Respectfully, this is a joke or delusional. The code is a stumbling block, but Google's legal stranglehold on Android, Play Services, and preventing OEMs from competing with their own AOSP builds is not a problem ChatGPT can solve. And we'll never hear about it either, because again, per Ars' marvelous article, linked above:
"None of Google’s OEM requirements are ever public unless there’s a lawsuit, so we can only guess at today’s requirements from available evidence"
Frankly, we can only guess what level of control Google levies based on their actions. They have, in my mind at least, lost the benefit of any doubt, and so when something that could have been ambiguous like their current roll-out comes up, they are not given the benefit of the doubt.
I don't think it's a "populist conspiracy" so much as people have developed trust issues with corporations instituting finer control onto people's lives when it comes to tech, all to maximize...
I don't think it's a "populist conspiracy" so much as people have developed trust issues with corporations instituting finer control onto people's lives when it comes to tech, all to maximize their own profits and interests. Time and time again, we have seen enshittification and corporate greed ruin good things.
Google has been especially subject to suspicion over the years because of how integral its products and services have become. General wariness has been building for years, and this policy seems to be an opportunity for them to lock down their control over phones and what's allowed on them. We're especially sensitive since right now, the only options for smart phones are basically Android or iOS, and Android currently has more "freedom" than iOS.
People are just incredibly wary of everything right now. So these suspicious reactions are a natural consequence.
No insult intended. I don't see a huge difference between the government doing it and corporations doing it. It's often the case that the government is essentially pushing the corporations to do...
No insult intended. I don't see a huge difference between the government doing it and corporations doing it. It's often the case that the government is essentially pushing the corporations to do the regulation for them, because it needs to be done and they don't want to do it themselves.
For example, a lot of the things banks do to prevent money-laundering are because the government is leaning on them to do it. Protecting people from fraud is not something that can be left to the government alone. Many businesses that deal with payments have to deal with fraud too.
I see your perspective, and think it's missing some major nuances. Primarily, to conflate governmental regulation with private terms and conditions is to equate law with capacity. Secondarily, but...
I see your perspective, and think it's missing some major nuances. Primarily, to conflate governmental regulation with private terms and conditions is to equate law with capacity. Secondarily, but more pressingly, the mechanisms that lead to such cooperation between regulators and private organizations are usually enacted in order to circumvent democratic mechanisms in the government.
If our standard for further regulation and centralized control is "people can defraud others", well, that's simply a recipe for a police state in the long run. I won't be dignifying that line of reasoning.
What democratic mechanisms do you have in mind? It's often the case that a legislature passes laws that private organizations have to follow. Or, more indirectly, they pass a law for the executive...
What democratic mechanisms do you have in mind? It's often the case that a legislature passes laws that private organizations have to follow.
Or, more indirectly, they pass a law for the executive branch to write the specific regulations that direct companies to come up with their own rules that customers have to follow. Public officials are not writing the specific rules that banks use to protect against fraud, but they get to decide whether those rules are adequate.
Similarly, when state legislatures pass laws requiring social media websites to do age verification, they don't say specifically how companies have to do it, and they're definitely not making judgements on individual users or posts.
In theory, a government could run its own social network and the people making such judgements could be state officials, but that seems more directly a censorship regime controlled by the state than the indirect way.
... just as Ford famously forced all automakers to install seatbelts. Hey, apologies, that was snarky. A proper response is to point out that an advertising company further locking down its "open"...
... just as Ford famously forced all automakers to install seatbelts.
Hey, apologies, that was snarky.
A proper response is to point out that an advertising company further locking down its "open" product (after I bought it, but let's not even open that can of worms) to further consolidate its stealth monopoly is the polar opposite of "regulation". Given the motivation, I believe I could make a strong argument that this is actually "late-stage Libertarianism".
Governments regulate products for consumer protection. Ad companies do not.
My understanding is that this move is in fact related to government regulation. It's just that they are regulating google rather than individuals. That's why it's rolling out in southeast Asia...
My understanding is that this move is in fact related to government regulation. It's just that they are regulating google rather than individuals. That's why it's rolling out in southeast Asia first. Although I didn't look into Brazil.
My take is that corporations don't tend to do anything unless it's profitable or if someone makes them. I know people are suggesting that this move gives them more control, but I don't really see how it makes google money. So, it seems likely to me that it's because someone is making them do it. "Government partnerships" tend to be the government telling a company to do something rather than a real collaboration.
From a Singapore government site:
Google Singapore announced that, in partnership with the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA), Google is launching a new enhanced protection feature within Google Play Protect to help further safeguard mobile users against malware-enabled scams, by blocking the installation of potentially-risky sideloaded apps. ... Singapore will be the first country to begin a phased pilot of this feature on Android devices in the next few weeks. This feature has undergone pre-testing and was developed as part of the ongoing partnership between Google and CSA on cybersecurity and anti-scam efforts
To further keep Malaysians safe from financial fraud, Google has rolled out its enhanced fraud protection feature within Google Play Protect to all Android users in Malaysia. This initiative is supported by the National Cyber Security Agency, National Security Council (NACSA, NSC), and is designed to better safeguard mobile users against malware-enabled scams, by blocking the installation of potentially-risky sideloaded apps. ... The announcement was made at the Google 2026 Online Safety Dialogue, alongside Malaysia Minister of Communications, YB Datuk Fahmi Fadzil. This is in line with the Ministry’s ‘Kempen Internet Selamat’, aimed at bolstering nationwide digital safety against threats such as online scams.
This is a giant corporation that exists in a duopoly with massive barriers to entry restricting consumer freedom to benefit their bottom line. Don't let the libertarians fool you, this should be...
This is a giant corporation that exists in a duopoly with massive barriers to entry restricting consumer freedom to benefit their bottom line. Don't let the libertarians fool you, this should be regulated.
I install cameras and security systems for a living. The main camera manufacturers are all Chinese (Dahua and HikVision being the biggest where I live) A few years back, due to Trump nonsense, the...
I install cameras and security systems for a living. The main camera manufacturers are all Chinese (Dahua and HikVision being the biggest where I live)
A few years back, due to Trump nonsense, the app for HikVision cameras (HikConnect) got removed from the Play Store. It's back now, I guess Trump got his bribe, but for a long time I had to download an APK and side-load it for customers, just because the US had yet another stupid spat with China. It was annoying for the customers, but at least it was an option.
Now if it happens again, I'd need to convince each customer to do nonsense like enabling developer options, waiting 24 hours (?!) and so on.
I do not understand why as a European, I need to rely on a fascist-loving US company to approve what I install.
It's really depressing how many people I see, even here where people are intelligent, supporting this awful garbage.
Just to clarify, you would have only had to do this if google also revoked their developer account. This process isn’t for everything side loaded. It is only for apks that aren’t signed by an...
Just to clarify, you would have only had to do this if google also revoked their developer account. This process isn’t for everything side loaded. It is only for apks that aren’t signed by an android developer account. I am not familiar enough to know what that situation was at the time. And even if their dev account was revoked, you can just install it with adb from a computer and bypass this entire process.
Well, presuming you've left the conversation, I'll just reply to the rest here... China has known data collection tendrils throughout their electronics' software, and that doesn't bode well for...
Well, presuming you've left the conversation, I'll just reply to the rest here...
China has known data collection tendrils throughout their electronics' software, and that doesn't bode well for most countries who'd rather not just share all their inhabitants' information to them.
Things like security (cameras and systems) are especially tense to keep intact when Google wants in on the still-legal-portion of the data. So as I'm backing up Weldawadyathink, I suspect that's their reason for their response.
It is both good and bad but mostly bad. It takes away more of Android user's freedom. scammers will find another way, there is already "install from this source" in setting which shows your...
It is both good and bad but mostly bad. It takes away more of Android user's freedom. scammers will find another way, there is already "install from this source" in setting which shows your intention.
The only one gaining most from this is Google. there is a pattern to what google is doing.
If you're using a device, you should know what you're getting into, at least the basics. If not, you shouldn't use that device. dumbing down of tech, instead of educating population is suffocating.
I agree with you, but it should be noted that this is a bad argument, since "it's still possible" ignores the benefit of "it's harder now." Things happen less when they're harder. Obstacles can be...
scammers will find another way,
I agree with you, but it should be noted that this is a bad argument, since "it's still possible" ignores the benefit of "it's harder now." Things happen less when they're harder. Obstacles can be good and worthwhile; it's just important to check if they're that, or if the tradeoffs are too much.
Personally, I think it's a better angle to criticize this on the basis that it's Google doing it and that an advertising company should never be the warden. The safeguards mentioned in the article would be fine, were it not for how much is demanded from people for verification, or for the fact that it's Google who's demanding.
Plenty of solutions are available, from actual government regulation to non-profits to open-source communities, with varying details to each. The bar for "better than an adtech giant" is an...
Plenty of solutions are available, from actual government regulation to non-profits to open-source communities, with varying details to each. The bar for "better than an adtech giant" is an extraordinarily low one.
I'm reminded of how Bluesky is setting up an independent Swiss organization (blog), that will maintain a public directory of AT Proto users. It's deliberately narrow-scoped, though. It's a...
It's deliberately narrow-scoped, though. It's a distribution mechanism that doesn't hold any user keys.
Such a thing might, in principle, be done for Android developers, but Google is doing more work there, by actually checking government IDs. By contrast, there's essentially no barrier to creating as many alt accounts you want on Bluesky.
On the contrary, Android phones are primarily for the masses, not us techies. If you’re more technical then there’s plenty of hardware you can buy to hack on. if you want to root your phone, make...
On the contrary, Android phones are primarily for the masses, not us techies. If you’re more technical then there’s plenty of hardware you can buy to hack on. if you want to root your phone, make sure you buy one where the bootloader can be unlocked. (Such as any Pixel phone that you buy direct from Google.)
I don't want to "hack on" on the computer I own - or rather whether I want it is besides the point. What I want is to have the final say in what apps I do and don't install on it and not outsource...
I don't want to "hack on" on the computer I own - or rather whether I want it is besides the point. What I want is to have the final say in what apps I do and don't install on it and not outsource that to some adversarial monopolist behind the ocean. Ridiculous.
Yup. It still pisses me off I can't manipulate my data in the Android folder without silly workarounds. Maybe I just want to grab a save file or mod a game? Why can't I access the shit on my device?
Yup. It still pisses me off I can't manipulate my data in the Android folder without silly workarounds.
Maybe I just want to grab a save file or mod a game? Why can't I access the shit on my device?
I view this as same way as forced updates and security measures. It is theoretically good if done with benevolent intent or controllable by the theoretical owner of the device. The updates are...
I view this as same way as forced updates and security measures. It is theoretically good if done with benevolent intent or controllable by the theoretical owner of the device.
The updates are generally ads, telemetry or ways to restrict blocking ads or telemetry, security is always from you and restricting installing unverified apps is to control what is run.
There’s also plenty being done to protect people from malware, whether it’s bad websites or bad apps. But when it doesn’t affect you directly, maybe it’s less noticeable.
There’s also plenty being done to protect people from malware, whether it’s bad websites or bad apps. But when it doesn’t affect you directly, maybe it’s less noticeable.
If you only take it at face value, maybe? Google isn't a trustworthy party, Manifest V3? Reducing permissions to keep users more secure? Or crippling adblockers to get more hits and not hurt their...
Exemplary
If you only take it at face value, maybe?
Google isn't a trustworthy party, Manifest V3? Reducing permissions to keep users more secure? Or crippling adblockers to get more hits and not hurt their bottomline?
The Android app blocking? Protecting people from getting scammed? Or scaring people away from using external sources from the appstore?
This is only adding to how Google essentially has a stranglehold on the web and its standard as well, W3 being the internet standards group doesn't matter much when 80%+ of the internet uses Chromium, there's this WebUSB/WebHID thing which a lot of peripherals use to program of control your mouse and keyboard without needing to install software. Cool right? Except Firefox doesn't have it due to the concerns of a web page having access to your Peripherals, and Safari doesn't support it either.
Whatever they do that encroashes on your ability to do use your software or hardware, is always tied to a frame of "This is for the safety/security of everyone!"
Peopie love to hate it, but ManifestV3 could also be seen as an example of how Google is doing the right thing despite it being unpopular. According to Google, Chrome extensions are being locked...
Peopie love to hate it, but ManifestV3 could also be seen as an example of how Google is doing the right thing despite it being unpopular. According to Google, Chrome extensions are being locked down as part of a years-long effort to protect users from dodgy extensions. And there certainly are a lot of dodgy extensions! Even the good ones are in danger of being taken over and turned into malware if the author trusts the wrong person to take over from them.
So that's not evidence of anything other than populists have lots of strongly-held opinions about Google's motives that are based on their own suspicions and those of others.
Evidence for motives doesn't come from suspicions alone, no matter how strongly stated. Just because you suspect a company might have bad motives doesn't mean you have evidence for that belief.
You certainly don't have to take every stated reason at face value, but converting suspicions into facts isn't right. It would be journalistic malpractice and a travesty of justice.
Trends are a form of averaging or stereotyping. They can certainly be a reasonable basis for suspicion, but you can't use a trend as evidence that someone definitely did a specific thing. A...
Trends are a form of averaging or stereotyping. They can certainly be a reasonable basis for suspicion, but you can't use a trend as evidence that someone definitely did a specific thing. A journalist who worked that way would be making things up instead of doing the reporting needed for each new story that they report on.
But also, sometimes people think they have lots of examples when they don't actually have good evidence for any of them!
I notice that you tend to personify Google quite a lot. Google is not a person. They are an organization. They are run by a number of people with a number of different motivations. Is it really...
I notice that you tend to personify Google quite a lot. Google is not a person. They are an organization. They are run by a number of people with a number of different motivations. Is it really unbelievable to you that some of them may be that they want to capture the market?
In any case you seem to be motivated to discount any evidence for any of these examples.
Yes, "motivation" is kinda problematic when applied to an organization. Companies have internal politics and governance disputes. Different people have different opinions about the company's...
Yes, "motivation" is kinda problematic when applied to an organization. Companies have internal politics and governance disputes. Different people have different opinions about the company's direction. As with any organization, some of those opinions might be from employees who don't actually know what's going on or have much power to change the company's direction.
So when people talk about a company's "true" motives versus their officially stated justifications, what are they talking about, exactly?
I'm not discounting evidence. I'm discounting the lack of evidence. Most people makng claims about motivation don't actually give any evidence!
Corporations give bullshit reasons for the things they do literally all the time. You can go to every corporate website and find a mission statement about how they exist to serve humanity and to...
Corporations give bullshit reasons for the things they do literally all the time. You can go to every corporate website and find a mission statement about how they exist to serve humanity and to make serve as stewards to the planet. Coca-cola, for instance, is an interesting case study because they tend to use the most grandiose language in their statement while producing the greatest amount of actual garbage littering the planet. So the official statements of a corporation are one of the least trustworthy things that they can say unless one of their representatives are in a court of some sort.
If you distrust the official reasons, that's certainly understandable. But it doesn't follow that whatever alternative reasons you or other people make up are what they're thinking. It means their...
If you distrust the official reasons, that's certainly understandable. But it doesn't follow that whatever alternative reasons you or other people make up are what they're thinking. It means their true motivations are a mystery. To do better than that, we would need some other way of knowing what they're really thinking, like maybe a leak to the press. Anything else is just speculation.
I fully agree that Google isn't a trustworthy party, but are they really threatened by third-party app stores? I don't have the figures, but I'd be shocked if non-Play Store usage were higher than...
The Android app blocking? Protecting people from getting scammed? Or scaring people away from using external sources from the appstore?
I fully agree that Google isn't a trustworthy party, but are they really threatened by third-party app stores? I don't have the figures, but I'd be shocked if non-Play Store usage were higher than low one digit percentage, at all. Which makes me think that, this time, they are at least acting on what they're telling are the reason to.
A settlement does not mean that they are innocent, it merely means that they've reached a resolution with Epic. It should be noted that they were attempting to appeal the case but they actually...
A settlement does not mean that they are innocent, it merely means that they've reached a resolution with Epic. It should be noted that they were attempting to appeal the case but they actually lost the last case on the grounds that they had created an illegal monopoly. When a United States court finds a corporation to be an illegal monopoly, you know something is wrong.
The settlement, in fact, is a subversion of law because it is quite literally going against the outcome of what the court had already decided. I frankly don't understand how or why such a thing was allowed to happen. The first version of this settlement was actually thrown out because, to my understanding, it was just an attempt by Google to cut a deal with Epic while still retaining their monopoly powers.
In any case, even if I were to accept that the terms of their settlement were to make them somehow not a monopoly anymore, I don't think I would be too comfortable with the fact that they have been not a monopoly for roughly seven months. Remember what the question was:
... are they really threatened by third-party app stores?
Unquestionably, yes, they were threatened enough to take action to block them. The only app store you could download through Google's own Play Store just came literally two months ago, exactly as a result of that Epic lawsuit - at least in the US market.
There's not. Or rather: define malware. I would include spyware and addiction-inducing gambling leeches in the list of unwanted software. After all, their intent is malevolent. Guess what makes up...
There's not. Or rather: define malware.
I would include spyware and addiction-inducing gambling leeches in the list of unwanted software. After all, their intent is malevolent. Guess what makes up 99.99% of the play store.
As far as I can tell, you are still able to install whatever you want. You’ll need to jump through some extra hoops to enable it, but it’s straightforward enough if you’re remotely technically savvy.
As far as I can tell, you are still able to install whatever you want. You’ll need to jump through some extra hoops to enable it, but it’s straightforward enough if you’re remotely technically savvy.
This just means when they eventually remove the dev mode bypass, nobody will be able to rally a movement around something so obscure and infrequently used.
This just means when they eventually remove the dev mode bypass, nobody will be able to rally a movement around something so obscure and infrequently used.
It works similarly on PCs, on macOS and windows. Applications need to be signed, or both OSes will show a warning on first launch that it's an unsigned app and you should take caution. You can...
It works similarly on PCs, on macOS and windows. Applications need to be signed, or both OSes will show a warning on first launch that it's an unsigned app and you should take caution. You can override it, just like you will be able to on Android.
I wouldn't call going deep into settings and performing a non-obvious series of actions (tapping an About section seven times), restarting a device, reauthenticating, waiting a day,...
I wouldn't call going deep into settings and performing a non-obvious series of actions (tapping an About section seven times), restarting a device, reauthenticating, waiting a day, reauthenticating again, and being asked if you want to do this again in a week as "works similarly".
It certainly is irritating for those who know what they're doing but there is large number of Android users who don't, they install some third party apk by intention or accidentally and get...
It certainly is irritating for those who know what they're doing but there is large number of Android users who don't, they install some third party apk by intention or accidentally and get scammed. It will certainly hinder that.
On the other side I can't deny Google is trying to grip it(Android) harder, allowing users to be more dependent on them while there is smokescreen of it being OS. the freedom on Android and how Google treating it is certainly raising red flags.
These corporations often do terrible things for customer in the name of security.
Are these people real? How do we know they are real so we can introduce them into a discussion as evidence? What fraction of users get scammed by malicious apps? Of those, what fraction were...
is large number of Android users who don't, they install some third party apk by intention or accidentally and get scammed.
Are these people real? How do we know they are real so we can introduce them into a discussion as evidence?
What fraction of users get scammed by malicious apps? Of those, what fraction were sideloaded and what fraction came through Google's store?
Funny, I asked Claude to see if there were any studies about where malicious Android software came from, and it pointed me toward this study that says that by volume the greatest number of...
Funny, I asked Claude to see if there were any studies about where malicious Android software came from, and it pointed me toward this study that says that by volume the greatest number of infections come from the Google Play Store.
I'm just surprised by the complaints about all the taps because I thought tech savvy users were used to tapping that button seven times to enable developer options anyway.
I'm just surprised by the complaints about all the taps because I thought tech savvy users were used to tapping that button seven times to enable developer options anyway.
There are way more people using phones than PCs, and people that have never dealt with PCs nor are aware of abstractions and defaults of an operating systems, and they can be specially vulnerable...
There are way more people using phones than PCs, and people that have never dealt with PCs nor are aware of abstractions and defaults of an operating systems, and they can be specially vulnerable to social engineering scams and unsafe, unlisted apps. Plus, in many places banking apps (on phones) are not only mandatory, but the only way to manage your money, so making the phone a more valuable, visible target.
What blocks scammy people from developing an app that would be malicious? Registering the developer means nothing for this kind of people. Think some brand (say in China) making something...
What blocks scammy people from developing an app that would be malicious? Registering the developer means nothing for this kind of people.
Think some brand (say in China) making something problematic, then getting sued for delivering poor quality thing, they just close the company and start a new one and make the same poorly made thing under new brand. What stops people like these from doing the same with software on Android? One day they are legitimate company and once they get recognized, the other day they are new legitimate company dping the same thing over and over again.
I say this is just artifical obstruction to make developing or running your own stuff harder.
And on topic of scams - where I live they make people (who fall for it) take a loan, get all the money from the bank and give them to someone in some backalley. And people do that! There is nothing that can save such people from being scammed and forcing app developers to being registered definitely does nothing for them.
Another way to look at this is money. I suppose registering yourself means paying some fee. And even if it may be free today, heed my words - it will be payed. Money. Everything is about money, there is nothing like higher good or doing something for users when there is big corporatipn involved.
I also think it's a good idea the way it's implemented. Some folks vastly underestimate how much scammers prey on our sense of urgency. It's like their number one trick and what gets even tech...
I also think it's a good idea the way it's implemented. Some folks vastly underestimate how much scammers prey on our sense of urgency. It's like their number one trick and what gets even tech literate people. A 24 hour waiting period that gives you proper time to think before you can install unsigned apps could easily be what lets, say, an elderly person call their child to ask if this is normal. It's a direct counter to scammers.
Yes, in a perfect world we wouldn't need this, but we live in a world where there is not enough technical literacy and large segments of people are very vulnerable to being scammed. If we are forcing everyone to have a digital life, then we should also have a responsibility to protect them from organized crime.
Of course, I do also think that stuff like this should be accompanied by more education efforts but, on the other hand, I am already bombarded by every institution I interact with with warnings about scams and phishing, so I don't know if there's much more that can be done. People keep getting scammed en masse despite ample warning and losing money/personal info. Sitting around doing nothing doesn't seem good. So I think this is a decent compromise.
My only concern, which I think is very valid, is that Google could use this as a stepping stone to later fully block unsigned apps unless you use adb, and that's the point where I think we're crossing the line. Remains to be seen if that's the direction they're headed toward.
That is absolutely the direction they are headed towards. What remains to be seen is when and if it will be the step directly after this or there will be an intermediary one.
Remains to be seen if that's the direction they're headed toward.
That is absolutely the direction they are headed towards. What remains to be seen is when and if it will be the step directly after this or there will be an intermediary one.
Agreed. Google has been tightening their control over the Android ecosystem over the last decade or so because they'd love Apple level control (and profits) that being the only App Store in town...
Agreed. Google has been tightening their control over the Android ecosystem over the last decade or so because they'd love Apple level control (and profits) that being the only App Store in town comes with.
It’s funny that Apple is being dragged kicking and screaming to open up their platform while Google is trying to lock it down.
Google already has Apple level control. Whatever amount of people side-load apps regularly, it's a rounding error. Google absolutely controls the app ecosystem outside of China, and they...
Google already has Apple level control. Whatever amount of people side-load apps regularly, it's a rounding error. Google absolutely controls the app ecosystem outside of China, and they absolutely enjoy Apple levels of profit over it. There's no real threat to that, either. Epic tried - they really tried - and it did not work. The only thing they miss from Apple, really, is that they are banned in China whereas Apple gets a lot of sweet sweet IAP money from the 2nd largest economy.
People say that but Android has been around for 18 years now and there are still plenty of manufacturers making them. If Google didn’t want other manufacturers making Android phones, you’d think...
People say that but Android has been around for 18 years now and there are still plenty of manufacturers making them. If Google didn’t want other manufacturers making Android phones, you’d think they’d have done something about it by now?
They also seem suspiciously slow at acting against alternative app stores.
And why does Google only sell phones with an unlocked bootloader? They didn’t have to do that.
Maybe don’t believe everything you read online about what a company’s motives might be.
The dismissive and snarky attitude isn’t needed. I wasn’t talking about hardware. I was talking about software ecosystem since that’s what this whole change is about, not the devices themselves....
The dismissive and snarky attitude isn’t needed.
I wasn’t talking about hardware. I was talking about software ecosystem since that’s what this whole change is about, not the devices themselves. Google wants others to make phones because they get paid a percentage, just like Microsoft.
They want to control the software ecosystem because it gives them ongoing revenue after someone buys the phone.
Well, that's a question that requires data that none of us will probably ever have. My point is that I think the argument that "Google itself is the biggest source of spyware" is very subjective,...
Well, that's a question that requires data that none of us will probably ever have.
My point is that I think the argument that "Google itself is the biggest source of spyware" is very subjective, and it because of that, it doesn't lend strength to the argument (at least to me). It is, of course, fine and good to have different opinions on the matter. I just don't think a Trump-esque style "and everybody knows it" point is giving the necessary credibility to change anyone's mind.
I agree, I think it's a reasonably good idea, and reasonably good execution. Is there a better solution, and execution? Probably, but I can't think of one, without spending a significant amount of...
I agree, I think it's a reasonably good idea, and reasonably good execution. Is there a better solution, and execution? Probably, but I can't think of one, without spending a significant amount of time musing over it.
I own some firearms, because I (used to) hunt, and also enjoyed shooting for sport. That includes an AR-style rifle I bought to hunt boar that were killing the chickens and baby goats on a farm that an old family friend lives on/runs. In same train of thought that if a national ban on AR style rifles were passed in the name of "gun safety", I'd be willing to give mine up for the greater good, I can accept this in the same way for the sake of "user safety".
The solution certainly isn't training our aging generation(s) to learn what pop ups are real and what aren't -- I've been trying to do that for 25+ years with my own parents, with little to no success. And while I'm happy to field my mom's phone calls and forwarded emails asking if something is real or not, I'm not 100% available at her times of need. Just last week she received a scam call from someone trying to obtain an SMS OTP from her that I stopped in real time, because I happened to stop by her house to pick my kids up.
I'm a pretty tech-capable person, I use a Pixel phone, and regularly use an unsigned app (Revanced). This is (or will be, once it hits the US market) a minor/one time inconvenience for me. I get the arguments about "stepping stones" and the concern about this eventually leading to no unsigned apps being installable without abd, but I don't see them as having a lot of weight currently. Of course none of us really know one way or the other, but I think that there would be warning signs before it ever got to that point, such as bootloaders no longer being unlocked. But that this point, it's not like we have any less functionality, there's just a one time wait period for unsigned apps. I think that other than active app developers, the people who might be affected by this the most are most likely the people who tend to prefer things like Graphene and F-Droid over stock Android and the Play Store anyway (and would therefore probably be unaffected).
I told my parents not to install anything, ask me first every time and read stuff that's written on the screen so that they catch some patterns and won't call me every time. Another alternative...
I told my parents not to install anything, ask me first every time and read stuff that's written on the screen so that they catch some patterns and won't call me every time. Another alternative was to get them dumbphones and so far we manage to live with them using smartphones.
I'm not afraid of clicking things few times and all this procedure. I'm afraid that this is just one of many steps in the future towards too much power owned by big tech. I imagine less and less people using nonplaystore apps, even though the apps are useful, because it's less tempting to install them. So less and less people fighting for indie apps and devs. More power to the corporation, and so on. And the end goal is to ban apps that aren't built with purpose of making corporation as powerful as possible. And this I find scary, evil and dangerous enough to defend against the step they currently started implementing.
I totally get that. I don't think it's an invalid argument at all, if anything, I agree with the logic of it on the whole. I just don't feel the link is as strong as you do, that this will lead to...
I totally get that. I don't think it's an invalid argument at all, if anything, I agree with the logic of it on the whole. I just don't feel the link is as strong as you do, that this will lead to an elimination of third party apps. Of course I could be wrong, and I'll regret my position today if I am. I just don't see it leading to that, currently.
I also think it’s a good idea and reasonable execution. The one modification I would make is have some way to bypass the 24 hour wait when setting up the phone. If you know already that you will...
I also think it’s a good idea and reasonable execution. The one modification I would make is have some way to bypass the 24 hour wait when setting up the phone. If you know already that you will be developing with a phone, or installing unregistered apps, you should be able to set it up from scratch to do so. But besides that exception, I think it is a good policy.
I don’t think it would be difficult. Don’t present it to the user at all. For example, if the phone is connected to adb during the setup process, and the user goes through the new procedure within...
I don’t think it would be difficult. Don’t present it to the user at all. For example, if the phone is connected to adb during the setup process, and the user goes through the new procedure within the first 24 hours, skip the 24 hour wait part of the process. Any power user that knows they want unsigned apps can do that pretty easily. Other users don’t even know it exists.
Reading the comments in here ... IDK ... perhaps we've reached that stage where a large percentage--perhaps even a majority--of people have effectively forgotten what it means to own stuff.
I mean, when did we get to the point that people seriously think an advertising company deserves any say whatsoever in what we do with our own phones?
This company's entire reason for existing is to sell advertising space to companies, and to credibly convince those companies that their ads will be seen by a lot of people who are predisposed to spend money because of those ads.
Where does "protecting phone owners from themselves" enter into that equation?
this is how we will own nothing and be happy (about that, at least): being incapable of wielding the benefits of ownership while the responsibility of it gets loaded onto us continuously
I wonder if people will ever realize how much they're being manipulated
No shade on you personally, but I think it's worth remembering that the context of this phrase includes being frequently referenced by neo-Nazis on 4chan. From Wikipedia:
The very Wikipedia page you linked provides an image that uses the phrase, and it doesn't say the image is a fake or anything like that but is supposedly an official image. So 4chan didn't even coin the phrase, and they certainly don't have ownership over the rights to lambast it. The fact that they attached it to their own ridiculous ethnic/racist conspiracies shouldn't prevent anyone else from being able to use it anymore than you shouldn't be able to use a keyboard because people on 4chan also use keyboards.
I never said they did. I said it was an important part of context, and I stand by that. And I think it's a bit silly to frame this as a "Hitler ate sugar" argument when it was significant enough to warrant documentation in Wikipedia, not to mention removing media from the WEF's site due to the threats sent to Ida Auken for it.
It's pretty apparent to me that neo-Nazi pushing of this phrase has been common enough that it's a determining factor in why it's still remembered and used so often today. Besides, if it were being remembered for more mundane reasons, it'd probably get used in contexts far more relevant to the article it came from, rather than for unrelated topics like this one.
Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, I don't think it's even a conspiracy per se, let alone the work of conniving what-have-yous, just to clarify. But the colonial engine goes brrrrr with or without a guiding hand, and conspiratorial messaging is remarkably efficient for this scope of issue, if you simply assume that "it's actually all those uppity [insert minority group]!" is never the answer.
I do think conspiratorial language is more likely to help conspiracies than it is to help understanding of the magnitudes of actual problems, unfortunately; it's efficient because it relies on a conspiracy theory, which is inherently overly simplistic and untrue. So I feel that's a very risky tactic. I agree otherwise, though!
I do my best to deploy it contradictorily, hoping to inspire people to go digging for how I'm wrong, if that helps your peace of mind. Otherwise, I guess my thinking is that conspiracy theories form out of latent storytelling structures and unsatisfactory understanding when a thinker is stressed, and are reinforced into belief upon contact with external validation. However, because of that reliance on assumption and the inherent differences in each believer's lack of knowledge, it's highly likely (outside the context of people putting themselves into filter bubbles and engineered propaganda campaigns) that the actually-held beliefs carry little to no correlation with one another. That's wiggle room to undermine from. If that makes sense.
Worked on me! I had a bug in my brain over that phrase for a while now since I first heard it from someone I know who watched Russell Brand (ew), but your comment was what got me to look it up.
I've had similar thoughts about conspiracy theories more generally though myself; I've described them several times before as people "wanting to believe they're the main character in a story," so I definitely agree with you there. Yours was a fantastic way to phrase it too, by the way. Much more succinct than I've ever put it.
I've recently joined another company (due to
a monopolistic takeoveran acquisition) and I can no longer use the Outlook app with the new policy standards, because my hardened GrapheneOS is flagged as rooted, courtesy of the Microsoft Intune app. Ironically, I can open Outlook in my phone's browser without issues.I know the unverified bs for Google is coming, but as a GenXer who maybe is just old and yelling at kids to get off my lawn and turn their music down, I also figured how to not get wrecked by downloading questionable items on Napster, or using sketchy stuff like my first jailbroken smart phone (iPhone 3GS), or refusing to actually use programs, apps, or any technology that could actually make my life more convenient but at the sake of privacy and becoming the product being sold.
I find it amusing that as a kid, I thought integrity was standing up for your personal rights for which you should be responsible (with ongoing events (edited for typo) [and themes like the Cold War, punk rock, Robin Hood mentality, etc.]), and now I see in hindsight that it was. But I guess society in general thought we won that battle somehow, and now we can relax and let someone else take over.
I agree with the idea of having these measures in place to protect people from scams. I'd definitely change a bunch of things, but broadly speaking some of them are good measures. But you're right, since I also agree that an advertising company has no place playing gatekeeper.
In theory, this system of obstacles could be a good one, but there is no universe in which it's acceptable for Google to be the arbiter of it.
There are plenty of products that are regulated to protect people from themselves. Food and drugs are regulated. Cars are regulated. Don’t let the libertarians fool you, this is totally normal.
"Libertarians"? I stand with the others - I'm insulted by this comment. This is not a libertarian stance. This is very clearly a way for Google to give themselves just a bit more control over the platform under the guise of safety, which, if you haven't noticed, has very much been their M.O. for the past few decades. And they've been very successful. Have you seen any successful open source RCS clients out there? Remind me how many web rendering engines there are that aren't Chromium based again. Google, just like any other megacorporation out there, is going to try to control everything - it's just trying to do it slowly so people don't object to it so much.
People keep saying that, but I've never seen any evidence that Google's motivations aren't what they say they are. It's just a populist conspiracy making the rounds because people want to believe.
Google ruling Android with an iron fist isn't new, and if you don't see it, I suspect you aren't looking for it. Not every instance is in the name of security, sometimes they claim to fight for developers in the name of fragmentation.
But dictating which of their apps appear where on a brand new Android handset, regardless of who it's sold by, is control. Telling OEMs they will either release Android (TM) handsets, or AOSP-derived operating systems, but not both, is control. Letting core AOSP apps wither and die, while pushing their proprietary apps, is control. Releasing their proprietary Play Integrity API, instead of building it into AOSP, is control.
Ars called it over a decade ago [0]. Then they added a few updates as their article made the rounds in 2018, because it was still so relevant, it wasn't worth updating - not enough had changed to warrant more than minor revisions. Now, in 2026, Google continues to centralize control
Android is Google's operating system. Everyone else just lives there.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/
I largely agree with how you describe what's going on. But it depends what you mean by "Android."
Yes, Google does control what OEM's do by making requirements on them in order to install the Play Store and Google apps on their devices. The EU has fined them for this when they go too far. But it seems like it still leaves quite a bit of freedom for OEM's to do their own thing? I haven't been all that interested in whatever Samsung is doing, but it's sounds like it's pretty far from the stock OS?
Also, that's different from controlling what other companies do with open source Android code. There are alternatives that don't have the Play Store (most often seen in China).
Your charactization of Google "[l]etting core AOSP apps wither and die" is kinda odd because AOSP doesn't have to be a complete OS for others to build on it, and the sample apps don't have to be very good to demonstrate how it works. If we want to see an Android OS not controlled by Google, shouldn't it be someone else building and maintaining those apps rather than being dependent on Google to do it for them?
Maybe the alternatives will improve now that AI makes it easier to do.
OEMs use Google's Android, or they are pushed out of the market.
One of the richest companies in the history of the world tried to take AOSP to market without Google [0]. They offered free, 24-hour-a-day customer support for any questions their customers had, and had every incentive to keep at it and improve year-over-year to attempt to build an ecosystem. Nobody can seriously argue Jeff Bezos is unable or unwilling (when he sees long-term benefit) to play the long game.
But despite being the juggernaught that was 2014-era Amazon, the Fire Phone isn't for sale today. They had to partner with Foxconn, because no other OEM was legally able to bulid the device - and that's despite not insisting on their flagship product using modern-for-the-time specs, even as Bezos himself apparently wanted "a phone which could set itself apart, could compete against established phone manufactures such as Apple, and a lower-cost, bare-bones phone would hurt the Amazon brand." [2]
And they exist exclusively in China. Per Ars' article (emphasis mine) in my previous comment:
And consumers won't stand for a phone that doesn't support their banking app, Netflix, Snapchat, and more. Google made Google Play Services a dependency of their Play Integrity API. If Amazon tried to release a new phone tomorrow, they wouldn't even be able to leverage AOSP compatibility - people don't want a phone that can't order an Uber or use the McDonalds app. This is Google making AOSP useless to any OEM that wants to sell to a Western audience; they will use Android, and all the restrictions and requirements that entails, or they will use nothing. This is Google exerting control.
No, but any OEM that wants to take that chance faces a choice: they can gain proficiency in manufacturing, and build a reputation from selling Android, but they cannot even attempt to compete with their own AOSP fork while continuing that. To attempt to use non-Android AOSP is a bet-the-company move, so it should be no surprise almost none have jumped.
Google locking up OEMs by preventing them from competing with Android is control
Respectfully, this is a joke or delusional. The code is a stumbling block, but Google's legal stranglehold on Android, Play Services, and preventing OEMs from competing with their own AOSP builds is not a problem ChatGPT can solve. And we'll never hear about it either, because again, per Ars' marvelous article, linked above:
Frankly, we can only guess what level of control Google levies based on their actions. They have, in my mind at least, lost the benefit of any doubt, and so when something that could have been ambiguous like their current roll-out comes up, they are not given the benefit of the doubt.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Phone
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bezos-approachwhy-amazons-long-game-should-your-playbook-cartology-i3xxe
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Phone#Development
I don't think it's a "populist conspiracy" so much as people have developed trust issues with corporations instituting finer control onto people's lives when it comes to tech, all to maximize their own profits and interests. Time and time again, we have seen enshittification and corporate greed ruin good things.
Google has been especially subject to suspicion over the years because of how integral its products and services have become. General wariness has been building for years, and this policy seems to be an opportunity for them to lock down their control over phones and what's allowed on them. We're especially sensitive since right now, the only options for smart phones are basically Android or iOS, and Android currently has more "freedom" than iOS.
People are just incredibly wary of everything right now. So these suspicious reactions are a natural consequence.
Equivocating this with governmental regulation is ridiculous. Insultingly so.
No insult intended. I don't see a huge difference between the government doing it and corporations doing it. It's often the case that the government is essentially pushing the corporations to do the regulation for them, because it needs to be done and they don't want to do it themselves.
For example, a lot of the things banks do to prevent money-laundering are because the government is leaning on them to do it. Protecting people from fraud is not something that can be left to the government alone. Many businesses that deal with payments have to deal with fraud too.
I see your perspective, and think it's missing some major nuances. Primarily, to conflate governmental regulation with private terms and conditions is to equate law with capacity. Secondarily, but more pressingly, the mechanisms that lead to such cooperation between regulators and private organizations are usually enacted in order to circumvent democratic mechanisms in the government.
If our standard for further regulation and centralized control is "people can defraud others", well, that's simply a recipe for a police state in the long run. I won't be dignifying that line of reasoning.
What democratic mechanisms do you have in mind? It's often the case that a legislature passes laws that private organizations have to follow.
Or, more indirectly, they pass a law for the executive branch to write the specific regulations that direct companies to come up with their own rules that customers have to follow. Public officials are not writing the specific rules that banks use to protect against fraud, but they get to decide whether those rules are adequate.
Similarly, when state legislatures pass laws requiring social media websites to do age verification, they don't say specifically how companies have to do it, and they're definitely not making judgements on individual users or posts.
In theory, a government could run its own social network and the people making such judgements could be state officials, but that seems more directly a censorship regime controlled by the state than the indirect way.
... just as Ford famously forced all automakers to install seatbelts.
Hey, apologies, that was snarky.
A proper response is to point out that an advertising company further locking down its "open" product (after I bought it, but let's not even open that can of worms) to further consolidate its stealth monopoly is the polar opposite of "regulation". Given the motivation, I believe I could make a strong argument that this is actually "late-stage Libertarianism".
Governments regulate products for consumer protection. Ad companies do not.
My understanding is that this move is in fact related to government regulation. It's just that they are regulating google rather than individuals. That's why it's rolling out in southeast Asia first. Although I didn't look into Brazil.
My take is that corporations don't tend to do anything unless it's profitable or if someone makes them. I know people are suggesting that this move gives them more control, but I don't really see how it makes google money. So, it seems likely to me that it's because someone is making them do it. "Government partnerships" tend to be the government telling a company to do something rather than a real collaboration.
From a Singapore government site:
https://www.csa.gov.sg/news-events/press-releases/google-partners-with-the-cyber-security-agency-of-singapore-to-pilot-a-new-enhanced-security-feature-to-better-protect-android-mobile-users-from-scams/
From Google:
https://blog.google/intl/en-my/company-news/technology/google-launches-enhanced-protection-in-google/
This is a giant corporation that exists in a duopoly with massive barriers to entry restricting consumer freedom to benefit their bottom line. Don't let the libertarians fool you, this should be regulated.
I install cameras and security systems for a living. The main camera manufacturers are all Chinese (Dahua and HikVision being the biggest where I live)
A few years back, due to Trump nonsense, the app for HikVision cameras (HikConnect) got removed from the Play Store. It's back now, I guess Trump got his bribe, but for a long time I had to download an APK and side-load it for customers, just because the US had yet another stupid spat with China. It was annoying for the customers, but at least it was an option.
Now if it happens again, I'd need to convince each customer to do nonsense like enabling developer options, waiting 24 hours (?!) and so on.
I do not understand why as a European, I need to rely on a fascist-loving US company to approve what I install.
It's really depressing how many people I see, even here where people are intelligent, supporting this awful garbage.
Just to clarify, you would have only had to do this if google also revoked their developer account. This process isn’t for everything side loaded. It is only for apks that aren’t signed by an android developer account. I am not familiar enough to know what that situation was at the time. And even if their dev account was revoked, you can just install it with adb from a computer and bypass this entire process.
Well, presuming you've left the conversation, I'll just reply to the rest here...
China has known data collection tendrils throughout their electronics' software, and that doesn't bode well for most countries who'd rather not just share all their inhabitants' information to them.
Things like security (cameras and systems) are especially tense to keep intact when Google wants in on the still-legal-portion of the data. So as I'm backing up Weldawadyathink, I suspect that's their reason for their response.
Yeah it's a bit funny to be installing fascist surveillance systems and complain about a fascist (really just capitalist) phone system.
Here, I made a meme since laughter is often a better way to change minds than arguments
https://i.imgur.com/T74inwb.png
A great irony, this is all I see.
It is both good and bad but mostly bad. It takes away more of Android user's freedom. scammers will find another way, there is already "install from this source" in setting which shows your intention.
The only one gaining most from this is Google. there is a pattern to what google is doing.
If you're using a device, you should know what you're getting into, at least the basics. If not, you shouldn't use that device. dumbing down of tech, instead of educating population is suffocating.
I agree with you, but it should be noted that this is a bad argument, since "it's still possible" ignores the benefit of "it's harder now." Things happen less when they're harder. Obstacles can be good and worthwhile; it's just important to check if they're that, or if the tradeoffs are too much.
Personally, I think it's a better angle to criticize this on the basis that it's Google doing it and that an advertising company should never be the warden. The safeguards mentioned in the article would be fine, were it not for how much is demanded from people for verification, or for the fact that it's Google who's demanding.
Who should do it if not Google, though? See my other post for how this currently works.
Plenty of solutions are available, from actual government regulation to non-profits to open-source communities, with varying details to each. The bar for "better than an adtech giant" is an extraordinarily low one.
As an actual libertarian, I still feel this is a logical and sane answer. I'm not an anarchist, and there is a reason governments should exist.
I'm reminded of how Bluesky is setting up an independent Swiss organization (blog), that will maintain a public directory of AT Proto users.
It's deliberately narrow-scoped, though. It's a distribution mechanism that doesn't hold any user keys.
Such a thing might, in principle, be done for Android developers, but Google is doing more work there, by actually checking government IDs. By contrast, there's essentially no barrier to creating as many alt accounts you want on Bluesky.
On the contrary, Android phones are primarily for the masses, not us techies. If you’re more technical then there’s plenty of hardware you can buy to hack on. if you want to root your phone, make sure you buy one where the bootloader can be unlocked. (Such as any Pixel phone that you buy direct from Google.)
I don't want to "hack on" on the computer I own - or rather whether I want it is besides the point. What I want is to have the final say in what apps I do and don't install on it and not outsource that to some adversarial monopolist behind the ocean. Ridiculous.
Yup. It still pisses me off I can't manipulate my data in the Android folder without silly workarounds.
Maybe I just want to grab a save file or mod a game? Why can't I access the shit on my device?
I view this as same way as forced updates and security measures. It is theoretically good if done with benevolent intent or controllable by the theoretical owner of the device.
The updates are generally ads, telemetry or ways to restrict blocking ads or telemetry, security is always from you and restricting installing unverified apps is to control what is run.
There’s also plenty being done to protect people from malware, whether it’s bad websites or bad apps. But when it doesn’t affect you directly, maybe it’s less noticeable.
If you only take it at face value, maybe?
Google isn't a trustworthy party, Manifest V3? Reducing permissions to keep users more secure? Or crippling adblockers to get more hits and not hurt their bottomline?
The Android app blocking? Protecting people from getting scammed? Or scaring people away from using external sources from the appstore?
This is only adding to how Google essentially has a stranglehold on the web and its standard as well, W3 being the internet standards group doesn't matter much when 80%+ of the internet uses Chromium, there's this WebUSB/WebHID thing which a lot of peripherals use to program of control your mouse and keyboard without needing to install software. Cool right? Except Firefox doesn't have it due to the concerns of a web page having access to your Peripherals, and Safari doesn't support it either.
Whatever they do that encroashes on your ability to do use your software or hardware, is always tied to a frame of "This is for the safety/security of everyone!"
Peopie love to hate it, but ManifestV3 could also be seen as an example of how Google is doing the right thing despite it being unpopular. According to Google, Chrome extensions are being locked down as part of a years-long effort to protect users from dodgy extensions. And there certainly are a lot of dodgy extensions! Even the good ones are in danger of being taken over and turned into malware if the author trusts the wrong person to take over from them.
So that's not evidence of anything other than populists have lots of strongly-held opinions about Google's motives that are based on their own suspicions and those of others.
Evidence for motives doesn't come from suspicions alone, no matter how strongly stated. Just because you suspect a company might have bad motives doesn't mean you have evidence for that belief.
You certainly don't have to take every stated reason at face value, but converting suspicions into facts isn't right. It would be journalistic malpractice and a travesty of justice.
How many examples do you have to see before you see a trend?
Trends are a form of averaging or stereotyping. They can certainly be a reasonable basis for suspicion, but you can't use a trend as evidence that someone definitely did a specific thing. A journalist who worked that way would be making things up instead of doing the reporting needed for each new story that they report on.
But also, sometimes people think they have lots of examples when they don't actually have good evidence for any of them!
I notice that you tend to personify Google quite a lot. Google is not a person. They are an organization. They are run by a number of people with a number of different motivations. Is it really unbelievable to you that some of them may be that they want to capture the market?
In any case you seem to be motivated to discount any evidence for any of these examples.
Yes, "motivation" is kinda problematic when applied to an organization. Companies have internal politics and governance disputes. Different people have different opinions about the company's direction. As with any organization, some of those opinions might be from employees who don't actually know what's going on or have much power to change the company's direction.
So when people talk about a company's "true" motives versus their officially stated justifications, what are they talking about, exactly?
I'm not discounting evidence. I'm discounting the lack of evidence. Most people makng claims about motivation don't actually give any evidence!
Corporations give bullshit reasons for the things they do literally all the time. You can go to every corporate website and find a mission statement about how they exist to serve humanity and to make serve as stewards to the planet. Coca-cola, for instance, is an interesting case study because they tend to use the most grandiose language in their statement while producing the greatest amount of actual garbage littering the planet. So the official statements of a corporation are one of the least trustworthy things that they can say unless one of their representatives are in a court of some sort.
If you distrust the official reasons, that's certainly understandable. But it doesn't follow that whatever alternative reasons you or other people make up are what they're thinking. It means their true motivations are a mystery. To do better than that, we would need some other way of knowing what they're really thinking, like maybe a leak to the press. Anything else is just speculation.
I fully agree that Google isn't a trustworthy party, but are they really threatened by third-party app stores? I don't have the figures, but I'd be shocked if non-Play Store usage were higher than low one digit percentage, at all. Which makes me think that, this time, they are at least acting on what they're telling are the reason to.
Yes absolutely they are. They had a whole lawsuit with Epic over it.
Which they settled in March.
A settlement does not mean that they are innocent, it merely means that they've reached a resolution with Epic. It should be noted that they were attempting to appeal the case but they actually lost the last case on the grounds that they had created an illegal monopoly. When a United States court finds a corporation to be an illegal monopoly, you know something is wrong.
The settlement, in fact, is a subversion of law because it is quite literally going against the outcome of what the court had already decided. I frankly don't understand how or why such a thing was allowed to happen. The first version of this settlement was actually thrown out because, to my understanding, it was just an attempt by Google to cut a deal with Epic while still retaining their monopoly powers.
In any case, even if I were to accept that the terms of their settlement were to make them somehow not a monopoly anymore, I don't think I would be too comfortable with the fact that they have been not a monopoly for roughly seven months. Remember what the question was:
Unquestionably, yes, they were threatened enough to take action to block them. The only app store you could download through Google's own Play Store just came literally two months ago, exactly as a result of that Epic lawsuit - at least in the US market.
There's not. Or rather: define malware.
I would include spyware and addiction-inducing gambling leeches in the list of unwanted software. After all, their intent is malevolent. Guess what makes up 99.99% of the play store.
I am in the minority that thinks this is a good idea and execution, I guess.
Care to elaborate why ypu think it's a good idea?
I mean we can install whatever we want on our PCs, why shouldn't we be able to do so on our phones?
As far as I can tell, you are still able to install whatever you want. You’ll need to jump through some extra hoops to enable it, but it’s straightforward enough if you’re remotely technically savvy.
This just means when they eventually remove the dev mode bypass, nobody will be able to rally a movement around something so obscure and infrequently used.
It works similarly on PCs, on macOS and windows. Applications need to be signed, or both OSes will show a warning on first launch that it's an unsigned app and you should take caution. You can override it, just like you will be able to on Android.
I wouldn't call going deep into settings and performing a non-obvious series of actions (tapping an About section seven times), restarting a device, reauthenticating, waiting a day, reauthenticating again, and being asked if you want to do this again in a week as "works similarly".
It certainly is irritating for those who know what they're doing but there is large number of Android users who don't, they install some third party apk by intention or accidentally and get scammed. It will certainly hinder that.
On the other side I can't deny Google is trying to grip it(Android) harder, allowing users to be more dependent on them while there is smokescreen of it being OS. the freedom on Android and how Google treating it is certainly raising red flags.
These corporations often do terrible things for customer in the name of security.
Are these people real? How do we know they are real so we can introduce them into a discussion as evidence?
What fraction of users get scammed by malicious apps? Of those, what fraction were sideloaded and what fraction came through Google's store?
Funny, I asked Claude to see if there were any studies about where malicious Android software came from, and it pointed me toward this study that says that by volume the greatest number of infections come from the Google Play Store.
Realistically, how many average android users are enabling developer mode and installing 3rd party APKs?
I'm just surprised by the complaints about all the taps because I thought tech savvy users were used to tapping that button seven times to enable developer options anyway.
There are way more people using phones than PCs, and people that have never dealt with PCs nor are aware of abstractions and defaults of an operating systems, and they can be specially vulnerable to social engineering scams and unsafe, unlisted apps. Plus, in many places banking apps (on phones) are not only mandatory, but the only way to manage your money, so making the phone a more valuable, visible target.
This comparison with PCs doesn't pan out.
What blocks scammy people from developing an app that would be malicious? Registering the developer means nothing for this kind of people.
Think some brand (say in China) making something problematic, then getting sued for delivering poor quality thing, they just close the company and start a new one and make the same poorly made thing under new brand. What stops people like these from doing the same with software on Android? One day they are legitimate company and once they get recognized, the other day they are new legitimate company dping the same thing over and over again.
I say this is just artifical obstruction to make developing or running your own stuff harder.
And on topic of scams - where I live they make people (who fall for it) take a loan, get all the money from the bank and give them to someone in some backalley. And people do that! There is nothing that can save such people from being scammed and forcing app developers to being registered definitely does nothing for them.
Another way to look at this is money. I suppose registering yourself means paying some fee. And even if it may be free today, heed my words - it will be payed. Money. Everything is about money, there is nothing like higher good or doing something for users when there is big corporatipn involved.
I also think it's a good idea the way it's implemented. Some folks vastly underestimate how much scammers prey on our sense of urgency. It's like their number one trick and what gets even tech literate people. A 24 hour waiting period that gives you proper time to think before you can install unsigned apps could easily be what lets, say, an elderly person call their child to ask if this is normal. It's a direct counter to scammers.
Yes, in a perfect world we wouldn't need this, but we live in a world where there is not enough technical literacy and large segments of people are very vulnerable to being scammed. If we are forcing everyone to have a digital life, then we should also have a responsibility to protect them from organized crime.
Of course, I do also think that stuff like this should be accompanied by more education efforts but, on the other hand, I am already bombarded by every institution I interact with with warnings about scams and phishing, so I don't know if there's much more that can be done. People keep getting scammed en masse despite ample warning and losing money/personal info. Sitting around doing nothing doesn't seem good. So I think this is a decent compromise.
My only concern, which I think is very valid, is that Google could use this as a stepping stone to later fully block unsigned apps unless you use adb, and that's the point where I think we're crossing the line. Remains to be seen if that's the direction they're headed toward.
That is absolutely the direction they are headed towards. What remains to be seen is when and if it will be the step directly after this or there will be an intermediary one.
Agreed. Google has been tightening their control over the Android ecosystem over the last decade or so because they'd love Apple level control (and profits) that being the only App Store in town comes with.
It’s funny that Apple is being dragged kicking and screaming to open up their platform while Google is trying to lock it down.
Google already has Apple level control. Whatever amount of people side-load apps regularly, it's a rounding error. Google absolutely controls the app ecosystem outside of China, and they absolutely enjoy Apple levels of profit over it. There's no real threat to that, either. Epic tried - they really tried - and it did not work. The only thing they miss from Apple, really, is that they are banned in China whereas Apple gets a lot of sweet sweet IAP money from the 2nd largest economy.
People say that but Android has been around for 18 years now and there are still plenty of manufacturers making them. If Google didn’t want other manufacturers making Android phones, you’d think they’d have done something about it by now?
They also seem suspiciously slow at acting against alternative app stores.
And why does Google only sell phones with an unlocked bootloader? They didn’t have to do that.
Maybe don’t believe everything you read online about what a company’s motives might be.
The dismissive and snarky attitude isn’t needed.
I wasn’t talking about hardware. I was talking about software ecosystem since that’s what this whole change is about, not the devices themselves. Google wants others to make phones because they get paid a percentage, just like Microsoft.
They want to control the software ecosystem because it gives them ongoing revenue after someone buys the phone.
Google itself is the biggest source of spyware. Will this help against that?
I mean, depending on what metric you're quantifying with, I would argue China is a bigger source of spyware than Google...
Fair point, especially with hardware, but if we add the rest of the American spyware group - Facebook, Palantir, CIA, NSA etc etc - who would "win"?
Well, that's a question that requires data that none of us will probably ever have.
My point is that I think the argument that "Google itself is the biggest source of spyware" is very subjective, and it because of that, it doesn't lend strength to the argument (at least to me). It is, of course, fine and good to have different opinions on the matter. I just don't think a Trump-esque style "and everybody knows it" point is giving the necessary credibility to change anyone's mind.
I agree, I think it's a reasonably good idea, and reasonably good execution. Is there a better solution, and execution? Probably, but I can't think of one, without spending a significant amount of time musing over it.
I own some firearms, because I (used to) hunt, and also enjoyed shooting for sport. That includes an AR-style rifle I bought to hunt boar that were killing the chickens and baby goats on a farm that an old family friend lives on/runs. In same train of thought that if a national ban on AR style rifles were passed in the name of "gun safety", I'd be willing to give mine up for the greater good, I can accept this in the same way for the sake of "user safety".
The solution certainly isn't training our aging generation(s) to learn what pop ups are real and what aren't -- I've been trying to do that for 25+ years with my own parents, with little to no success. And while I'm happy to field my mom's phone calls and forwarded emails asking if something is real or not, I'm not 100% available at her times of need. Just last week she received a scam call from someone trying to obtain an SMS OTP from her that I stopped in real time, because I happened to stop by her house to pick my kids up.
I'm a pretty tech-capable person, I use a Pixel phone, and regularly use an unsigned app (Revanced). This is (or will be, once it hits the US market) a minor/one time inconvenience for me. I get the arguments about "stepping stones" and the concern about this eventually leading to no unsigned apps being installable without abd, but I don't see them as having a lot of weight currently. Of course none of us really know one way or the other, but I think that there would be warning signs before it ever got to that point, such as bootloaders no longer being unlocked. But that this point, it's not like we have any less functionality, there's just a one time wait period for unsigned apps. I think that other than active app developers, the people who might be affected by this the most are most likely the people who tend to prefer things like Graphene and F-Droid over stock Android and the Play Store anyway (and would therefore probably be unaffected).
I told my parents not to install anything, ask me first every time and read stuff that's written on the screen so that they catch some patterns and won't call me every time. Another alternative was to get them dumbphones and so far we manage to live with them using smartphones.
I'm not afraid of clicking things few times and all this procedure. I'm afraid that this is just one of many steps in the future towards too much power owned by big tech. I imagine less and less people using nonplaystore apps, even though the apps are useful, because it's less tempting to install them. So less and less people fighting for indie apps and devs. More power to the corporation, and so on. And the end goal is to ban apps that aren't built with purpose of making corporation as powerful as possible. And this I find scary, evil and dangerous enough to defend against the step they currently started implementing.
I totally get that. I don't think it's an invalid argument at all, if anything, I agree with the logic of it on the whole. I just don't feel the link is as strong as you do, that this will lead to an elimination of third party apps. Of course I could be wrong, and I'll regret my position today if I am. I just don't see it leading to that, currently.
I also think it’s a good idea and reasonable execution. The one modification I would make is have some way to bypass the 24 hour wait when setting up the phone. If you know already that you will be developing with a phone, or installing unregistered apps, you should be able to set it up from scratch to do so. But besides that exception, I think it is a good policy.
ADB is still operational if you want to sideload apps that way without the reboot. But I agree a 24 hour hold is excessive.
How this question would be present during phone setting up without causing confusion to the people not aware of the issue? This thing is hard.
I don’t think it would be difficult. Don’t present it to the user at all. For example, if the phone is connected to adb during the setup process, and the user goes through the new procedure within the first 24 hours, skip the 24 hour wait part of the process. Any power user that knows they want unsigned apps can do that pretty easily. Other users don’t even know it exists.