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

Keep Android Open

f-droid.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 764 posts

Re: Keep Android Open

#121

Post by stratom »

microtonal wrote: post #77
ruuda wrote: post #8

I contacted the EU DMA team about my concerns and got a real reply within 24 hours. Not just an automated message, it looked like a real human read my message and wrote a reply. I'd urge other EU citizens to do the same.

Great idea, I just did the same. I encourage other EU citizens to do the same. Keeping at least one of the two major mobile ecosystems open is important. (And install GrapheneOS, the more successful open Android becomes, the better.)

GrapheneOS is great. But that currently means you have to buy a phone from Google to work around Google looking down Android.

Re: Keep Android Open

#122

Post by nazgulsenpai »

Atlas667 wrote: post #49

Capitalism is the privatization of human needs. As long as these tech platforms are owned privately they will be used to police and make money. This view NEEDS to be central to the tech freedom rhetoric, else the whole movement is literally just begging politicians and hoping corporations do the right thing... useless.

Aren't the politicians or their appointed bureaucrats who'd be making all the decisions if these needs were government owned? Why would state control lead to less policing? What incentive structure would lead to innovation without a profit motive, when even the modern communist world relies on capital markets?

(these are honest questions and not "gotcha")

Re: Keep Android Open

#123

Post by joecool1029 »

idiotsecant wrote: post #39
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We heard from developers who were concerned about the barrier to entry when building apps intended only for a small group, like family or friends. We are using your input to shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements. In classic Google fashion, they hear the compla…

I think you've omitted the next section, which seems more relevant. It seems like they will still allow installs, just hide it behind some scare text. Seems reasonable?

> It seems like they will still allow installs, just hide it behind some scare text.

This was already the case for enabling sideloading at system level: it warned you. Nobody really says having this toggle is a bad thing, basically the user shouldn't get an ad network installing apk's just browsing around the web without their informed consent (and android has been found to be vulnerable to popunder style confirmations in the past).

They also already had the PlayProtect scanning thing that scans sideloaded APK's for known malware and removes it. People already found this problematic since what's to stop them pulling off apps they just don't like, and no idea what if any telemetry it sends back about what you have installed. There have been a handful of cases where it proved beneficial pulling off botnet stuff.

Finally, they also have an additional permission per-application that needs to be enabled to install APK's. This stops a sketchy app from installing an APK again without user consent to install APK's.

The question is: How many other hurdles are going to be put in place? Are you going to have to do a KYC with Google and ping them for every single thing you want to install? Do you see how this gets to be a problem?

Re: Keep Android Open

#124

Post by zb3 »

gf000 wrote: post #14
zb3 wrote: post #4

Android was never open. User apps are limited, only system apps can do X which means third party apps can't compete with Google and this is not a coincidence. Let's focus on making it possible to use really open Linux systems on smartphones.

There are some functionality limited to google play services, but it really is not too much in my opinion.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I was talking about the whole permissions system where the user is a third class citizen. Device manufacturers are second class citizens (restricted by Google via CDD/CTS) and the only true winner on that system is Google.

Regarding some concrete examples - Google can deeply integrate Gemini, but a competitor can't do this and users get no final say here either. Competitors are restricted by the permission system, Google is not restricted at all.

While rooting can alleviate this to some extent, Play Integrity is there to make sure the user regrets that decision to break free..

Re: Keep Android Open

#125

Post by dmitrygr »

exe34 wrote: post #119
dmitrygr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Party B owes you nothing. You are free to not use their products or start a company to compete. When 99% of government/banks/etc require you to use a certain service to access basic services, you need some way of ensuring you don't have to sell your soul to use it. Alternatives would be really great, but Google is part of a duopoly. Just because you build the rails doesn't mean you get to decide who gets to use the…

That is not their fault, though. I can see how you could complain to the people who mandate you use B’s products. Otherwise what you’re saying is that control of any intellectual property can be stolen from its owners simply by becoming popular outside of their control

Re: Keep Android Open

#126

Post by moron4hire »

dmitrygr wrote: post #105
ruuda wrote: post #8

I contacted the EU DMA team about my concerns and got a real reply within 24 hours. Not just an automated message, it looked like a real human read my message and wrote a reply. I'd urge other EU citizens to do the same.

[flagged]

My moral justification is that my right to do with the physical property I have in my physical hand is more important than any noncorporeal corporation's right to do anything with their noncorporeal intellectual property.

The truth is, I gave party C money for a product. Party B does not get to say anything about what party C gave me. And they absolutely do owe me something, and that is the use of the product they gave me for my money. Whatever their terms of service say about licensing versus owning should not trump the fact that I made a one-time purchase and I have physical ownership that they cannot revoke. This is not a car lease where I have a contract with the dealership and they can reposses the car if I don't make the payments.

Re: Keep Android Open

#127

Post by dmitrygr »

microtonal wrote: post #117
dmitrygr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That is not how the European Union works. One of the core goals of the EU is to guarantee the European single market. One of the core principles of the single market is the Freedom to establish and provide services [1]. The Apple/Google duopoly have effectively created a market within the single market where the core principles of the single market do not apply anymore. Tech has a strong tendency to favor outcomes wi…

Yes. I am effectively asking you what the moral justification for DMA is. I understand that lawmakers can make whatever law they want. I understand they made it. I am curious how people who agree this should be possible think of this from a moral angle, especially as engineers who make their living by creating intellectual property and probably wouldn’t want to see control of it seized randomly

Re: Keep Android Open

#128

Post by rzerowan »

nimbius wrote: post #25

This isnt going to be a popular post because the HN crowd is very much a "China bad" crowd but I hypothesize China will likely step in and offer a fork that's compatible with open ecosystems not under the direct control of the us state department. This might be in the form of commits and investment in fdroid and pinephone, or a tiktok like alternative to the wests walled garden. Edit: this will likely exist "uncensor…

Maybe a shift to Huaweis HarmonyOS with its android compatibility layer or SailfishOS if they play their cards right.

As far as HarmonyOS i dont see many uptakes outside strict US free requirements as the other OEMs are lazy and also dont want to be locked into a competitor.

SailfishOS looks like its your time to faceplant once more , by not having a proper stratergy on monetizing on the many missteps from the current monopoly.I thonk at this point they need a leadership/biz stratergy overhaul - the tech is nice and polished, user demand is off the charts for an alternative . And they are just .. missing. Not even in th e conversation.

Re: Keep Android Open

#129

Post by [deleted] »

tux1968 wrote: post #108
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not? It's their operating system It's my phone.

Of course it's your phone, but the whole point of using Android is that it makes a lot of choices for you. It forces a billion things on you, and this is really no different than any of the others. Everything from UI colors, to the way every feature actually works. For instance, should you be able to text message one million people at a time? You might want to, but Android doesn't offer that feature. Do you want to i…

[deleted]

Re: Keep Android Open

#130

Post by tux1968 »

microtonal wrote: post #118
tux1968 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's your phone, but the whole point of using Android is that it makes a lot of choices for you. It forces a billion things on you, and this is really no different than any of the others. Everything from UI colors, to the way every feature actually works. For instance, should you be able to text message one million people at a time? You might want to, but Android doesn't offer that feature. Do you want to i…

The problem is that step by step ownership of your device is taken away. First most phones stopped supporting unlocking/relocking (thank Google for keeping the Pixel open), now the backtracked version of this, next the full version, etc.

Yes, that is a real problem. But it doesn't justify arguing uncritically or unrealistically in other areas. I think people should be free to do anything they want with their own devices. They should be able to install any software they want. That's very different than demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire. ie. You should be able to install your own operating system, you don't get to tell them how theirs should operate.

There are legitimate concerns being addressed by these feature restrictions.

Post reply on HN