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

Play Store blocks AuroraStore, hurting GrapheneOS users

gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 313 posts

Re: Play Store blocks AuroraStore, hurting GrapheneOS users

#71

Post by Semaphor »

titularcomment wrote: post #61
DaSHacka wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think there's already a lot of us in the 'community' as-is. I personally describe it as 'Valuing Privacy/Freedom over Security'. One pretty clear example of this is how they don't recommend using FireFox Mobile and F-Droid, both of which I use regardless because I'm not willing to put up with worse privacy/usability tradeoffs in the name of (imo 'hyper-')security. I think it's fine the mission of the proje…

FYI, there are ungoogled chromium builds for Android. Firefox Mobile really is a lackluster browser unfortunately both from a usability and security standpoint (e.g. IonStack worked on Fennec)

I really like the Firefox usability. For what I do it works great. It has uBo and a bunch of other extensions, and if course it can sync with desktop.

Re: Play Store blocks AuroraStore, hurting GrapheneOS users

#72

Post by megagpt5 »

iririririr wrote: post #32
armadyl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accounts created on stock Pixels don’t require phone numbers.

that haven't been true since pixel 4. it just picks your phone in the background. a burner sim, like a literal criminal, is the only way today.

It still works without a SIM card, how do you explain that?

Re: Play Store blocks AuroraStore, hurting GrapheneOS users

#73

Post by berkes »

ChocolateGod wrote: post #29

So an app that uses an unofficial API broke when that API changed? Not news nor "blocking".

What is an "official API"?

Honest question, because AFAIK there's no guarantee or (legal) requirement to support any API. Whether that's fully documented, has SDKs or whether it's something reversed-engineered doesn't matter WRT the support the company owning the API is supposed or required to give.

Or am I wrong there?

Re: Play Store blocks AuroraStore, hurting GrapheneOS users

#74

Post by arjie »

hadlock wrote: post #49
pyrophane wrote: post #8

GrapheneOS actually recommends against using Aurora and instead just using the Play Store, so this shouldn't really hurt users. For extra privacy, you can sign into the Play Store with a Google Account that isn't tied to anything else.

It seems wise to have at least one alternative mobile phone app store. Even if it isn't very good. If the government can tell Google to do trivial things like, for example, change the name of bodies (plural now) of water, it can turn off your app updates, trapping you on insecure versions indefinitely. This probably matters more if you live outside of the US, but if I had a plan B for an app store on my phone, I woul…

Name changes happen all the time and I would expect Google to match what the government sources use locally. The fact that the government is capricious is no reason for me to desire Google to become an alternative naming center.

Re: Play Store blocks AuroraStore, hurting GrapheneOS users

#75

Post by megagpt5 »

DaSHacka wrote: post #33
troyvit wrote: post #14

I use Aurora on GOS. I get that they say sandboxed Play is more secure than Aurora, but I prefer it for its lack of toxicity and absence of shitty dark patterns. I think the increased popularity of GOS is going to draw in more users like me who picked it for reasons adjacent to Graphene's original purpose, and I hope it's not too annoying for their community.

I actually think there's already a lot of us in the 'community' as-is. I personally describe it as 'Valuing Privacy/Freedom over Security'. One pretty clear example of this is how they don't recommend using FireFox Mobile and F-Droid, both of which I use regardless because I'm not willing to put up with worse privacy/usability tradeoffs in the name of (imo 'hyper-')security. I think it's fine the mission of the proje…

[flagged]

Re: Play Store blocks AuroraStore, hurting GrapheneOS users

#76

Post by berkes »

kotaKat wrote: post #11

Didn't Epic get some kind of magic injunction saying that Google had to allow open access to the entire Play Store catalogue or something?

Also, EU is pushing towards more "open" app-stores through anti-trust.

Not that it requires Google to "open up" their play-store, but that they must allow other app-stores to work on the same level. So basically allowing devs and users to move elsewhere.

Re: Play Store blocks AuroraStore, hurting GrapheneOS users

#78

Post by suddenlybananas »

dmantis wrote: post #58
pyrophane wrote: post #8

GrapheneOS actually recommends against using Aurora and instead just using the Play Store, so this shouldn't really hurt users. For extra privacy, you can sign into the Play Store with a Google Account that isn't tied to anything else.

Sometimes you just can't. For example, the banking app I have refuses to be installed from the Play Store on GrapheneOS due to "not-certified" device, but works perfectly fine when installed by Aurora. The check seems to be purely store-based and never enforced later.

I have similar problems installing region locked apps as someone who's fairly frequently in different regions.

Re: Play Store blocks AuroraStore, hurting GrapheneOS users

#80

Post by dingaling »

Cider9986 wrote: post #55
amaccuish wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

GrapheneOS is focused on privacy but that must come from a secure baseline. GrapheneOS is much more privacy focussd than any other mobile operating system. Accrescent is the end goal for a secure and private app store but it's still in alpha. GrapheneOS is also the best for degoogling (eliminating all google services) because it comes with zero Google services unlike all the other ones listed here: https://eylenburg.…

The problem is that to achieve privacy through security, Graphene has to treat the user as a potentially hostile actor.

Therefore, the system needs to protect itself and other apps from the user. Which is very much contrary to software freedom.

Post reply on HN