If they're taking on verification, are they also taking on liability? Do we get to sue them if grandma gets scammed through an app they allow onto their phone?
Nice try, but no, shit only flows down.
Android Developer Verification
191–200 of 345 posts
Re: Android Developer Verification
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both things might be true. Sideloaded apps are probably way more likely to be malicious, but also most installed malware/crapware is quite likely coming from Google Play.
I’ve never found a malicious app on F-Droid.
To be honest the limited popularity of F-Droid also helps it be less targetted by bad actors. If it was more popular I would bet the situation would surely be different
Re: Android Developer Verification
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please call it what it is and always has been: I.N.S.T.A.L.L.I.N.G S.O.F.T.W.A.R.E "side load" is like "jay walking' seeks to stigmatize humans being human.
When you jay walk you take the risk of being hit by a car, causing injuries to you, to the driver, and to other nearby people. So I don't understand your analogy? Are you suggesting that pedestrians own the streets and should do what they please, as users own their phone and should have the right to do as they please? Or something else?
> Are you suggesting that pedestrians own the streets and should do what they please
In the cities? Yes, absolutely.
Re: Android Developer Verification
#194What % 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…
Google/Android don't want AI bots spamming marketplaces with dodgy apps. Tie in the app to a verified identity/individual and it makes the audit process easier as well as engagement with authorities from the user's country if required (e.g. app facilitating child abuse).
Of course it’s the apps that checks notes facilitate child abuse.
Re: Android Developer Verification
#195Re: Android Developer Verification
#196What % 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…
Rounded to the nearest percent, I'd guess power users make up 0% of android user base.
Is it because people genuinely don't care, or because the barrier to become a power user is becoming taller and taller every passing year?
Re: Android Developer Verification
#197If I do software for Windows, Linux or FreeBSD I don't need verification. And potential users aren't required to get software only from a certain app store.
This is a case of companies forcing things on us "for our own good" and them knowing better than us what is good for us or not.
Re: Android Developer Verification
#198A 'safe' app store would promote and prioritize open source apps compiled on public auditable runners.
Yeah like npm! Don’t think there’s ever been security issues in that.
Re: Android Developer Verification
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being able to side load apps was why I switched to android 10 years ago
Please call it what it is and always has been: I.N.S.T.A.L.L.I.N.G S.O.F.T.W.A.R.E "side load" is like "jay walking' seeks to stigmatize humans being human.
I call it "direct install" personally, implying the play store is the indirect install.
Re: Android Developer Verification
#200Earlier 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.
> Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this - they should be proactively helping their most vulnerable users.
I think they should help their median users and empower their power users, and they should absolutely throw a few "most vulnerable" users under the bus if that's necessary. Otherwise you think about banning kitchen knives to protect the "most vulnerable users" who are too stupid to handle a knife. No, we shouldn't do that. Their stupidity should be their problem, not our problem.
Some degree of collateral damage must be accepted to maximize the expected value of a product or service. Minimizing risks can't be the top priority. Don't ban kitchen knives. What you are effectively arguing for is transforming both Windows and macOS into a closed iOS. Don't do that.