Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

commonsware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 311 posts

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#111

Post by xyzal »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #107

Presumably this won't apply to Chinese OEMs, since even though their devices do ship a disabled by default Google Mobile Services (without the user facing Play Store APK), it obviously would not be suitable to require Google involvement for developing internal apps. The OEMs could set up such a debug licensing service themselves, but each of them would have to do it themselves, and then it would be impossible to debu…

Many Chinese OEMs are not Google certified, so it won't for sure apply to them. Some (Huawei) even had to implement their own app store and replacement for Google services. They are basically de-googled devices, though, sadly, often loaded with spyware from the other camp.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#113

Post by bigstrat2003 »

kelnos wrote: post #84
csomar wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly because the "web" was sabotaged. I use archlinux and my only GUI application is a web browser. On mobile, I need an email app, maps app, food delivery app and a communication app. Even whatsapp doesn't work on the web (on purpose). If the web was enabled, app stores wouldn't be possible and you could run anything without an installation. But somewhere along the line both Google and Apple realized that this isn…

> I use archlinux and my only GUI application is a web browser. Debian here, and... yup. It's so weird to realize this. I have lots of browser windows open with lots and lots and lots of tabs open, but the only other app I have open is a Matrix client (which honestly is not that great; Element's web version has more features and better polish), and a terminal. If you can call a terminal a GUI app. Sure, I do use nati…

I mean, that's a choice. Most of my activity is still native apps, because I hate web apps and avoid them like the plague. I don't doubt you could do the same, but you have chosen to use web based options - which, to be clear, is totally fine! But it's not the way it has to be.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#114

Post by opan »

enriquto wrote: post #67
sschueller wrote: post #2

The requirement of verification to side-load any app is fascist control. It is clear as night and day. Shame on Google and Apple, it was always clear this was the end goal and next up is also your PC. Right after will come the removal off apps they don't like and there is nothing you can do about it. Stallman was right

> The requirement of verification to side-load any app is fascist control. Even the language we are using to describe the situation is problematic. Why do we say "side-load an app"? It should be just "run a program"! An OS that doesn't let you run programs of your choice is laughable.

I think I have an old comment about this, but there is an actual `adb sideload` command for installing an apk on your phone from your computer. Since it's from your computer and not the phone itself, it's sideloading and not frontloading, I guess. Weirdly, and wrongly, people have also started to use the term to refer to just installing apps from outside the official appstores, but that's not sideloading. It's just installing an app. It's a normal Android feature. You can just grab a .apk file with your browser and install it like you would a .exe file on Windows.

iOS on the other hand historically required a jailbreak for this. I think that's where the confusion started. Android doesn't need a jailbreak, it doesn't need root (privileges), it doesn't need a custom ROM. You can just install stuff, it's normal. I think iOS users don't realize how different Android is and they just start repeating words like sideload and root without knowing what they mean, assuming it's just Android-speak for a jailbreak. They don't realize there's no jail in the first place.

I am aware English is a living language, and if enough people are wrong for long enough, they stop being wrong, but it's certainly painful to witness.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#115

Post by itake »

dns_snek wrote: post #103
itake wrote: post #53

While I am against the policy, Google only publishes developer's full legal name and email address if the app is monetized [0]. If the app is monetized, then the full mailing address is shared. If money is involved, it’s fair for users to know who they’re dealing with. Developers who want to hide their personal identity can still do so legally with a shell company. Taking it a step further, if I am going to run your…

All of those are fine things to expect from Google Play but the point is moot because this verification would also apply to apps installed from external sources where they shouldn't have any jurisdiction. Google, just like Apple, should be free to enforce any kind of verification they deems necessary on Google Play, as long as they allow third party stores to be on equal footing, which they don't.

I agree. we should be able to install apps we want to install. But if you're installing them from the Google Play store (which is what is discussed) then you should be allowed to know who you're doing business with.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#116

Post by casenmgreen »

Individual privacy and anonymity matter substantially less when Governments are basically decent and play by the rules, and so it seems there is a tendency to value convenience and utility over privacy and anonymity.

When Government goes bad, suddenly we are faced with the utmost need for privacy and anonymity, but we may by then be in a situation where privacy and anonymity are difficult to obtain, with all the consequences that then flow from that.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#117

Post by bigstrat2003 »

swe_dima wrote: post #18

There goes one of the main arguments why I've been using Android over iPhone

If anything, this is even worse than what Apple does. iPhone users frequently argue that the inability to install arbitrary software is a feature in their eyes, one of the things that attracts them to the platform. I disagree with their argument, but in fairness I must admit Apple has never pretended that an iPhone is a device you control. They have always been very up front that it is a curated experience, their way or the highway. It's distasteful to me but they're honest about it. What Google is doing is a bait and switch to so many users who chose their platform specifically because it was open.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#118

Post by snerbles »

godelski wrote: post #89
Mordisquitos wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where in the real world is anonymity considered ok? I am allowed to invite guests into my home even if their identity isn't pre-registered with my landlord.

Personally I'm a big fan of not registering with the police every time a use a public restroom.

It's for security, like showing your ID at the airport! Airports have public restrooms, after all.

(/s)

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#119

Post by simoncion »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #85
mettamage wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked an LLM, so I think I get it but could you try to mention what is meant with "Stallman was right"? The reason I'm asking you and not posting the LLM answer is because it still feels a bit icky to post an LLM answer for everything I don't understand [1]. [1] Feel free to discuss this too, if you want. I'm developing my opinion on it.

Stallman has a long history of being very abrasive and ideological. He is the kind of guy who makes zero concessions for practicality, and he insists on prioritizing user freedom because he has always feared that otherwise users will be locked out of having the ability to truly control their computers. It's always been kind of easy to laugh at his crusade because of how zealous he is, and how absurd the scenarios he…

> He is the kind of guy who makes zero concessions for practicality...

Respectfully, this claim is incorrect. See this 2013 essay [0] for one example out of many where concessions are made to practicality.

Folks who are unfamiliar with Stallman's writing and the general philosophy of the FSF and/or the GNU Project might find spending an hour or so reading through some of the essays here [1] (perhaps starting with this 1991 essay [2]) to be informative.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-prog...>

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html>

[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html>

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#120

Post by snerbles »

kuschku wrote: post #88
beardyw wrote: post #60

I know I risk being down voted remorselessly but I have to put this in context. Where in the real world is anonymity considered ok? If I only put a flyer through someone's letterbox here in the UK, I have to identify myself. If I sell a physical product I not only have to identify myself but take on serious legal liability. An author can take on a pseudonym but only via an identified publisher. In fact that latter ex…

That's not even true for physical products. I can give away stuff anonymously at hackspaces, or in many other settings. Identification is only required if I want to sell stuff, at large scale. Google's plan would also utterly destroy fdroid and similar projects.

A coin-op vending machine is anonymous too. As were pay phones.
Post reply on HN