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

Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#331

Post by t_mahmood »

izacus wrote: post #306
t_mahmood wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with bootloader unlocking isn't it? Ah, its not much, just an email away ... oh, not much it's email and a phone call away ... Just wait 7 days ... no, it's just a month, and only one device par account? What's wrong with it? You are overreacting Wait! Why you want to unlock your boot loader, only 0.000001% does it. You are abnormal, not the mass user Fool me once it's on you Fool me twice ... it's on me. We are…

All Google Pixel phones still have unlockable and resignable bootloader.

Um, I am sorry, in the current context, Why do you think of all, we still pay Google? :-)

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#332

Post by plst »

prmoustache wrote: post #242
plst wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by impossible in this case? Can't you just have the coin-operated parking meters back? Where I live, in EU, parking meters even take cards. EDIT: I guess "just" is doing some heavy-lifting, so I won't argue this further, but "impossible" isn't the word I would use either. The city could revert this decision, definitely if enough people wanted them to (that's... I know, the hardest part). I just agree…

There are places in EU too where parking meters have disappeared and payments are only done through apps. And I am talking about public space in the street, not private parkings.

I do believe that. Pointing out that I live in the EU was completely unnecessary, I meant that I live somewhere in the EU, I didn't really mean to compare it to the US.

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#333

Post by basilikum »

A lot of people here are looking for compromises. Any compromise on this means giving ground to Google's monopoly and the war on open computing and ultimately freedom.

This is exactly what Google intended. This is why they started off by announcing completely removing device owner chosen installs (this is not side loading! It's simply installing.) and announced only apps allowed by Google would be available for install.

They knew it would cause backlash. They anticipated that and planned ahead faking a compromise.

They are trying to boil us like frogs by so slowly raising the temperature so we do not notice. Whenever the water gets so warm that people do notice they cool it down a little. But they will turn up the the heat again!

This 24h window is designed to make device owner controlled installs as unattractive as possible. They try to reduce it as much as they can while having plausible deniability ("You can still install apps not whitelisted by us"). They want to get the concept of people installing software of their own choice onto their own device as far away from the mainstream as possible. They want to marginalize it. They want to slowly and quietly kill off the open Android app ecosystem by reducing the user base.

The next step will be them claiming that barely anyone is installing apps not signed by them anyway. First they make people jump through ridiculous hoops to install non whitelisted apps, then they use the fact that few people jump through these hoops to justify removing the ability altogether.

Google does not care about preventing scams. If they did they would do something against the massive amount of scam ads that they host. Scams are just their "think of the children".

Do not play by their playbook!

Do not give them ground!

We must not accept any restrictions on the software we run on our own devices. The concept of ownership, personal autonomy and choice are being dismantled. Our freedom is the target of a slow, long waging war. This is yet another attack.

We must not compromise with the attacker. We must not give them any centimeter of ground.

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#334

Post by MishaalRahman »

nxtbl wrote: post #182
MishaalRahman wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) The one-time, one-day waiting period only applies if you go through the advanced flow to allow installing unregistered apps. You can still install registered apps (ie. apps made by developers who have verified their identity) even if they're distributed outside the Play Store. 2) You can use ADB to immediately install unregistered apps. ADB installs are not subject to the waiting period.

3) And how can we keep on using F-Droid and other app stores? 4) How can we install apps made by devs who won't do the verification dance with Google?

Developers who distribute Android apps on other app stores are not strictly required to undergo verification and thus can remain anonymous, but if they choose not to, then later this year (when the enforcement of verification goes active) their apps can only be installed on certified Android devices via ADB and/or the new advanced flow.

Thus, you can still install unregistered apps if they're distributed via F-Droid or other sources, but to do so, you will need to use ADB and/or go through the new advanced flow. And remember, the new advanced flow is a one-time process - once you go through with it, you can allow your device to install unregistered apps indefinitely!

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#335

Post by andai »

observationist wrote: post #311
wlesieutre wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay verification fee to continue

>"PLEASE DRINK VERIFICATION CAN TO CONTINUE"

Context: https://files.catbox.moe/eqg0b2.png

I think they later made a Black Mirror episode along these lines. "Resume viewing... Resume viewing..."

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#336

Post by gumby271 »

kykat wrote: post #314
gumby271 wrote: post #161

> In addition to the advanced flow we’re building free, limited distribution accounts for students and hobbyists. This allows you to share apps with a small group (up to 20 devices) without needing to provide a government-issued ID or pay a registration fee. I don't quite understand how those installs would be tracked. If I create a "hobbyist" account and share the apk, are the devices that install that app all repor…

You thought it wasn't reporting every app you install?

I mean, I'm happy to be conspiratorial about it too, I give Google no benefit of the doubt, but outside of Play Protect I don't think they explicitly say "your phone is telling us every app you install." This new feature is them making that explicit.

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#337

Post by dwaite »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #325
grishka wrote: post #87

At this point I'm convinced that there's something deeply wrong with how our society treats technology. Ruining Android for everyone to try to maybe help some rather technologically-hopeless groups of people is the wrong solution. It's unsustainable in the long run. Also, the last thing this world needs right now is even more centralization of power. Especially around yet another US company. People who are unwilling…

Could the technophobes please just buy different smartphones? If certain people want to opt in to locked down devices, I think that's okay. But please give me a device that lets me do whatever I want. (And still lets me participate in modern society—I can't live with a Linux phone). Apple's argument for locking down the iPhone but not the Mac has always been some variation of "Mac users are professionals and iPhones…

We already have that. The market for the "technophobe" (e.g. above average and below levels of security awareness) phone is 100x larger.

That means the people who say "I can evaluate the intricacies and impacts of software authorization" have significantly fewer speciality devices to pick from, and those devices may not be worth developers (or regulators) making carve-outs to support.

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#338

Post by user34283 »

basilikum wrote: post #333

A lot of people here are looking for compromises. Any compromise on this means giving ground to Google's monopoly and the war on open computing and ultimately freedom. This is exactly what Google intended. This is why they started off by announcing completely removing device owner chosen installs (this is not side loading! It's simply installing.) and announced only apps allowed by Google would be available for insta…

It's 2026 and regulators are finally getting around to do something about the mobile app distribution chokehold.

And Google thinks they can pull this? I hope regulators make it very clear that this is the wrong direction, and with record fines.

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#339

Post by curt15 »

free_bip wrote: post #78
xnx wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The one-day waiting period is so arbitrary. Scammers aren't going to wait on the phone for a day with your elderly parent.

Brother, there's an entire genre of scamming where the scammers spend months building rapport with their victims, usually without ever asking for anything, before "cashing out". One day is nothing.

Wouldn't a wait time like 2 hours with some jitter make it more difficult for a scammer to pursue the case? People aren't going to be willing to stay on the phone for hours at a time. With 24 hour wait, the scammer could just schedule another call for the next day.

Re: Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

#340

Post by basilikum »

egorelik wrote: post #113

As an idea, what about allowing the 24 hours to be bypassed using adb (edit: bypass to allow indefinitely, not just install a single app)? I understand there is some problem trying to be solved here, but honestly this is still quite frustrating for legitimate uses. If this is the direction that computing is moving, I'd really rather there were separate products available for power users/devs that reflected our differ…

As an idea, what about letting me install on my own device whatever I want?

This is ridiculous. Google is trying to dismantle the concept of ownership and personal autonomy. Do not give them any ground.

Post reply on HN