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

Keep Android Open

keepandroidopen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 907 posts

Re: Keep Android Open

#101

Post by surajrmal »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #22
blindriver wrote: post #10

99% of malware with real world consequences of people losing much or all of their money is from unverified developers. This is a step in the right direction to keep people safe in my opinion. Most people around the world don’t understand the risks.

The malware boogeyman is really paying off tangibly for Google. They've got actual fans of their profit-motivated paternalism.

Anyone who has lived through the windows PC era knows it's a legitimate problem. Google has tons of data to show malware exists for Android as well. Being able to prevent that malware from affecting the lives of Android users is a moral imperative for Google. I understand why folks are skeptical, but it's worth trying to dig into the fact rather than just react blindly.

Re: Keep Android Open

#102

Post by microtonal »

wasabinator wrote: post #20

Between this and a growing number of oems not permitting bootloader unlocking (latest being Samsung with OneUI 8) Android's "open" future is pretty bleak.

IMO the bigger recent issue is that Google stopped pushing AOSP updates timely. As far as I know the QPR1 source is still missing in action after almost two months (!).

Re: Keep Android Open

#103

Post by surajrmal »

silisili wrote: post #21
blindriver wrote: post #10

99% of malware with real world consequences of people losing much or all of their money is from unverified developers. This is a step in the right direction to keep people safe in my opinion. Most people around the world don’t understand the risks.

The ability to 'sideload' is already off by default, and warns you before turning it on. Maybe just a bigger or sterner warning? I mean there's only so much you can do there...

This won't be true for much longer iiuc. Look at the outcomes of the Epic lawsuit. That's probably why Google is changing how they tackle this problem.

Re: Keep Android Open

#104

Post by heavyset_go »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #68
anonymous908213 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is for developers. Abandoning Android for Linux is not viable for software developers who need to eat. Sure, we can use Linux smartphones ourselves, but if the software we make has a grand total of three people who ever lay eyes on it, that's less than ideal. And given how The Year of the Linux Desktop has gone, I think it'd be strongly preferable if we managed to stave off the tightening of control over…

Waydroid does surprisingly well at running Android apps on Linux. Sure some apps won't work for whatever reason & HN commenters will have incredibly scathing things to say about that, but I bet there's a lot of folks who'd be cool with missing an app here or there. It sucks to be losing Android, but IMO it's an ecosystem in free-fall. Bootloaders are locked more and more, there's literally zero AOSP hardware buyable…

> Right, but that's a choice from manufacturers, not a requirement of building a mobile platform.

IMO, I think Microsoft gave up on running Android apps on Windows because they read the writing on the wall: Google will use Play Integrity/Protect to ensure Android apps only run on Google-approved devices/operating systems and nothing else.

I think this is the ultimate fate for Waydroid, as well.

Re: Keep Android Open

#105

Post by 28304283409234 »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #53
anonym29 wrote: post #2

I've got my Linux smartphone running and ready to go. VWYF, folks. I'll take shitty software and poor battery life over digital authoritarianism every single time. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

You can still run an Android build that doesn't require a Google signature for apps. You'll just lose access to Play Integrity APIs, which you wouldn't get from non-Android Linux phones either. A better technical solution is to set up a federated replacement for Play Integrity that third party ROM developers can opt into and a library that can use that or Play Integrity for app developers that want it to use.

Banking apps will not work then.

Re: Keep Android Open

#106

Post by rafaelmn »

jeena wrote: post #58

Back in the 2007 or when it came out in Sweden I bought the iPhone and started developing for it. This was cool, new and exciting and it was fine as long as my company was paying the $100 fee every year. But then I switched jobs and worked at a company which produced mostly open source code. Suddenly I would have to pay $100 every year just to be able to put my own software on the phone ... This is why I switched to…

100$ a year for a dev in Sweden - that's like money you wouldn't notice if it got lost in your pockets - and I am sure it cuts down on spammers and covers administrative cost.

I have no problem with a store having a small admission fee - that's perfectly reasonable and they do have operational costs. It would be nice if they had some way to waive the fee for popular OSS to garner some god will with the devs.

Taking a 30% cut of revenue on the other hand ... both platforms are guilty of this

Re: Keep Android Open

#107

Post by 28304283409234 »

blindriver wrote: post #10

99% of malware with real world consequences of people losing much or all of their money is from unverified developers. This is a step in the right direction to keep people safe in my opinion. Most people around the world don’t understand the risks.

When was the last time you read articles about malware in F-droid? When was the last time you read articles about malware in the play store?

Re: Keep Android Open

#108

Post by celsoazevedo »

deanc wrote: post #71
franczesko wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What this has to do with the topic, if you're on iOS?

Because I'd actually be interested in an Android phone if Google locks down the play store to legitimate actors, increases the barrier for entry and improves the quality and safety of submissions. Which this looks to be doing?

This is not Google locking down the Play Store, it's them restricting distribution outside the Play Store, which you don't have to do in any case.

Re: Keep Android Open

#110

Post by surajrmal »

constantcrying wrote: post #82
codedokode wrote: post #29

Before buying a smartphone I tried to find an inexpensive model that supports open source OS, but I couldn't. What open OS support is ether expensive Pixels, or outdated models. The solution, I think, would be a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device (using fuses, digital signatures, encryption etc). So if you buy a device with CPU and writabl…

>The solution, I think, would be a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device (using fuses, digital signatures, encryption etc). Why would you make essential security features illegal? Do you want to fly on a plane where the flight control software was maybe overwritten? >So if you buy a device with CPU and writable memory, you should be able to l…

Security only works if you can control what software is trustworthy. If some software has been proven to be untrustworthy, it is worthwhile to prevent all software that the producer has ever made from working at scale. Adding some nominal process and fee to make it too expensive to create a lot of accounts prevents them from creating hundreds of alternative aliases. There is a lot of precedence for why this is a good idea and works. I think if there was another company involved with performing the audit which folks trusted it might now seem so scary.
Post reply on HN