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

Android Developer Verification

android-developers.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 345 posts

Re: Android Developer Verification

#81

Post by satvikpendem »

marcprux wrote: post #74
ethagnawl wrote: post #12

What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care? I've been using Android since 2010 because it was open in ways that the Apple ecosystem wasn't. I do not want this and imagine hardly any other power users (for lack of a better term) do. I'm already using a mostly deGoogled device but this really seals the deal. I have been longing for a true Linux phone for years and now seems like a good time to get…

> What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care? 2%, according to the keepandroidopen.org poll[^1] [^1] https://techhub.social/@keepandroidopen/116251892296272830

Sampling bias.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#82

Post by selectively »

brnt wrote: post #36
TGower wrote: post #31

It really seems like they are doing a lot to appease the tiny minority of us power users, adb load unaffected, one time toggle in settings to opt out, no change to alternative app stores as long as the apk was built by a verified developer. Crazy how harsh the sentiment is here, there are real people being harmed by scam apps intercepting sms one time codes and this will reduce the rate of that happening. It's not li…

Those scam apps largely are installed from the Play store. Let them fix that first.

Your post is an outright lie.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#83

Post by akerl_ »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #78
DashAnimal wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily like the idea of a company wiping their hands clean and saying "well - not our problem!" either though. Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this - they should be proactively helping their most vulnerable users. That is the "do no evil" motto. I don't know enough to say whether this method is the right approach however.

>Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this Unless you built your house yourself, you should expect the construction company to be responsible for verifying the identities of anyone entering your house. Asking for a passport and a one time payment, just in case the person who rings the bell may not be a friend. That should be proactively helping you in case you're a vulnerable homeowner. Not checking in on ev…

I lived in an apartment building, and one of the upsides was that the building had a security system and a front desk that helped control who could be wandering down my hall.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#84

Post by fc417fc802 »

charcircuit wrote: post #34
ethagnawl wrote: post #12

What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care? I've been using Android since 2010 because it was open in ways that the Apple ecosystem wasn't. I do not want this and imagine hardly any other power users (for lack of a better term) do. I'm already using a mostly deGoogled device but this really seals the deal. I have been longing for a true Linux phone for years and now seems like a good time to get…

People don't want it until they've been scammed. Then they'll complain why you didn't save them.

People will erroneously complain about all sorts of things. Doesn't mean you should act.

Anyway in this case it's nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse to justify making ecosystem changes that are in their favor. They aren't acting in good faith.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#85

Post by circuit10 »

TGower wrote: post #31

It really seems like they are doing a lot to appease the tiny minority of us power users, adb load unaffected, one time toggle in settings to opt out, no change to alternative app stores as long as the apk was built by a verified developer. Crazy how harsh the sentiment is here, there are real people being harmed by scam apps intercepting sms one time codes and this will reduce the rate of that happening. It's not li…

But that "tiny minority" are the people developing apps, which all their other users use... if you drive away devs from wanting to develop on your platform that's not going to go well for you (of course, they may still be forced to develop for Android if they want a wide audience, but you're driving away hobbyists with new ideas)

Re: Android Developer Verification

#86

Post by fc417fc802 »

akerl_ wrote: post #83
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this Unless you built your house yourself, you should expect the construction company to be responsible for verifying the identities of anyone entering your house. Asking for a passport and a one time payment, just in case the person who rings the bell may not be a friend. That should be proactively helping you in case you're a vulnerable homeowner. Not checking in on ev…

I lived in an apartment building, and one of the upsides was that the building had a security system and a front desk that helped control who could be wandering down my hall.

Doesn't really seem like it fits the analogy. Even ignoring that, I doubt they were checking passports and collecting tolls from guests, right?

Re: Android Developer Verification

#87

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

akerl_ wrote: post #83
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this Unless you built your house yourself, you should expect the construction company to be responsible for verifying the identities of anyone entering your house. Asking for a passport and a one time payment, just in case the person who rings the bell may not be a friend. That should be proactively helping you in case you're a vulnerable homeowner. Not checking in on ev…

I lived in an apartment building, and one of the upsides was that the building had a security system and a front desk that helped control who could be wandering down my hall.

Me too.

But we, owners, collectively choose that. We choose the security company, we pay then, we can vote them out. Most importantly: the construction company has zero say in this.

Also, no one actually check the IDs of my friends, and they don't have to pay the construction company when they first come.

I give the codes, they ring, I open. I hire a company to monitor the building but I can kick then out any day.

I own the place, you see?

Re: Android Developer Verification

#88

Post by stavros »

userbinator wrote: post #68

Older Androids which are fully rootable and unbrickable are cheap (maybe even monetarily free) and will let you continue to have freedom despite what Google wants. "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."

Older Androids won't exist for long.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#90

Post by Zak »

DashAnimal wrote: post #53
cubefox wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people complain about being scammed with Windows or macOS? Apparently not. So they probably also don't complain about Android. The security seems more an excuse to become more closed. Like iOS.

I don't necessarily like the idea of a company wiping their hands clean and saying "well - not our problem!" either though. Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this - they should be proactively helping their most vulnerable users. That is the "do no evil" motto. I don't know enough to say whether this method is the right approach however.

Saying that computer/OS manufacturers should prevent malware is effectively equivalent to saying that they should not sell general purpose computers to the public. A general purpose computer is one that can run any program the users tells it to, which necessarily includes one that's malicious.

That doesn't necessarily preclude helping the user to notice when they're doing something dangerous, but a waiting period before the computer becomes general-purpose seems pretty extreme.

Post reply on HN