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

Keep Android Open

f-droid.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 764 posts

Re: Keep Android Open

#231

Post by sepositus »

retired wrote: post #193
fermigier wrote: post #62

It is a disgrace how Google has managed this situation. To recap the storyline, as far as I understand it: last August, Google announced plans to heavily restrict sideloading. Following community pushback, they promised an "advanced flow" for power users. The media widely reported this as a walk-back, leading users to assume the open ecosystem was safe. But this promised feature hasn't appeared in any Android 16 or 1…

Good thing restricting side-loading isn't legal in the European Union! Not a problem here. Apple had to enable side-loading on their EU-based phones and so will Google if they restrict it.

How specific is the law? What if side loading requires a "trusted" signed certificate where trusted means from Google Play?

Not even playing devil's advocate, just wondering how many loopholes actually exist.

Re: Keep Android Open

#232

Post by palata »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #225
codethief wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strong disagree. Linux, its permission system and its (barely existent) application isolation are lightyears away from the security guarantees that Android brings.

Desktop OSes and their derivatives are woefully behind in this regard, and unfortunately the will to bring them up to par is incredibly weak. Of those in mass use (Qubes OS is neat but its user base isn’t even a rounding error), macOS probably does the most, but it’s still lagging behind iOS and what’s been implemented has come with much consternation from the technically inclined peanut gallery. I understand some am…

> We really need to get past the 90s-minded paradigm of everything having access to everything else all the time

I do agree with that, and I strongly believe that the iOS and Android security model is way ahead of Desktop Linux. But what I observe is that nobody seems to care about the security model. A recurrent complaint I see against anything AOSP-based (including Android) is that people "want to be root".

Re: Keep Android Open

#233

Post by Balinares »

Tharre wrote: post #162
realusername wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer has to come from anti trust legislation. Android is too big for Google to control.

Who else is going to maintain and develop it? It's the same issue as with Chrome, even if you force Google to give it to some other company, they're all just as bad. And it's too big and too costly to maintain for anyone else but tech giants. The only other options would be convincing users to pay 5 bucks a month for their software, or have some Government fork over the tens of millions required to pay open source de…

I'm thinking with ever increasing seriousness: let's split any company that grows past a certain size. Each side gets a copy of the codebase and half the assets, no one who's been on the board on one side can be on the other side's board, and neither side can buy off the other. They can use the existing branding for a limited time and with a qualifier (say Google Turnip vs Google Potato) but after that it's on the strength of the new brand which they're each building and for which they're competing against each other and the rest of the market.

This is not happening in my lifetime, of course it isn't. But by god does it need to happen.

Re: Keep Android Open

#234

Post by pseudalopex »

malfist wrote: post #192
pluralmonad wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it is generational or regional or what, but there is a solid segment of people that live in very close contact with their bank.

On average, people spend 4 hours and 37 minutes on their phone, per day [1]. I find it hard to believe someone would spend 4 hours and 9 minutes _per day_ looking at their banking app or using NFC payments. [1] https://explodingtopics.com/blog/smartphone-usage-stats

Your assumption they used their phone an average time was false probably.

Re: Keep Android Open

#235

Post by 1718627440 »

dmitrygr wrote: post #131
moron4hire wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My moral justification is that my right to do with the physical property I have in my physical hand is more important than any noncorporeal corporation's right to do anything with their noncorporeal intellectual property. The truth is, I gave party C money for a product. Party B does not get to say anything about what party C gave me. And they absolutely do owe me something, and that is the use of the product they ga…

And you can use it. You can, in fact, keep using the software that shipped on it. What you want is access to further intellectual property they develop (updates, features), that just so happens to be able to run on your hardware and ability to shepherd it in a direction you want and they don’t.

> And you can use it.

Tell that to the locked bootloader.

> What you want is access to further intellectual property they develop (updates, features), that just so happens to be able to run on your hardware and ability to shepherd it in a direction you want and they don’t.

Well yeah, I am paying them with money (and data) and thereby with power and expect them in turn to provide directions for my device, so that is does what I want. That's kind of the deal. If they don't want to provide that, then they can just not accept my money (and data). They can of course produce devices, that to what they want, and want me to carry them around, but then they better pay me.

If they use the power I gave them against me, then I will demand my power projection as a service provider (aka. the government) to project power in my interest.

Re: Keep Android Open

#236

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

nimbius wrote: post #25

This isnt going to be a popular post because the HN crowd is very much a "China bad" crowd but I hypothesize China will likely step in and offer a fork that's compatible with open ecosystems not under the direct control of the us state department. This might be in the form of commits and investment in fdroid and pinephone, or a tiktok like alternative to the wests walled garden. Edit: this will likely exist "uncensor…

Competition needs to come from somewhere due to lack of antitrust enforcement in the US. If not China then hopefully elsewhere.

The US system is dying from lack of competition.

Re: Keep Android Open

#237

Post by beeflet »

dmitrygr wrote: post #131
moron4hire wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My moral justification is that my right to do with the physical property I have in my physical hand is more important than any noncorporeal corporation's right to do anything with their noncorporeal intellectual property. The truth is, I gave party C money for a product. Party B does not get to say anything about what party C gave me. And they absolutely do owe me something, and that is the use of the product they ga…

And you can use it. You can, in fact, keep using the software that shipped on it. What you want is access to further intellectual property they develop (updates, features), that just so happens to be able to run on your hardware and ability to shepherd it in a direction you want and they don’t.

> that just so happens to be able to run on your hardware

the hardware is specifically locked down with "trusted computing" features to facilitate this. It's not a random coincidence. The problem here lies in the network effects and the use of trusted computing. If my bank app mandates that I use "real deal 100% certified android", then I can't just develop my own OS. So it's an antitrust situation.

If every company in the world teamed up with MegaCorp and made their services contingent on wearing a MegaCorp shock collar powered by trusted computing, would you wear it? You are free to not use the collar... and starve to death in the woods I suppose.

I don't usually even care about intellectual property. It's a hack to grant a temporarily exclusive monopoly as a way to incentivize R&D. The R&D in this case is just solving the question of "how do we establish a larger monopoly". So why should the public be forced to uphold it?

Asking me if I am willing to violate intellectual property in this situation is like if I was being lowered into a pit of liquid hot magma and in order to get out I had to break the flag code or jaywalk or something.

Re: Keep Android Open

#238

Post by 1718627440 »

dmitrygr wrote: post #125
exe34 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Party B owes you nothing. You are free to not use their products or start a company to compete. When 99% of government/banks/etc require you to use a certain service to access basic services, you need some way of ensuring you don't have to sell your soul to use it. Alternatives would be really great, but Google is part of a duopoly. Just because you build the rails doesn't mean you get to decide who gets to use the…

That is not their fault, though. I can see how you could complain to the people who mandate you use B’s products. Otherwise what you’re saying is that control of any intellectual property can be stolen from its owners simply by becoming popular outside of their control

> That is not their fault, though.

It is though. They are actively working on increasing their marketshare. That doesn't happen by accident. They have chosen to place the interests of the corporation over the interest of their fellow people. They are fine to do that, because we separated that responsibility. Corporations can only chase for profit, because we have governments, that make the rules, so that chasing profits is in the interests of the people.

Maybe you don't like that, and that is fine for you, although I don't like that you don't like that. Maybe you want a society where might makes right. However a lot of people don't feel that way, hence why we outsourced that world model to the government.

People don't like that their neighbor is stronger than them and takes there stuff, so they pay feudal lords. Then the feudal lords want some security, so they outsource that to elected emperors. After a while the feudal lords misuse their power, so parliaments are invented. Eventually people have enough and demand voting rights. The elected leaders betray the people by sending them to war, so they created multinational institutions, that try to prevent this (EU). They haven't used their power to betray the people enough, so we are still fine with them.

"Wealth comes with obligations" is literally in my country's constitution. You, may don't like that, but I do. I think a lot of other people do as well. It is of course always for discussion how much.

Re: Keep Android Open

#239

Post by palata »

paxys wrote: post #73

The fundamental problem is that we are relying on the good graces of Google to keep Android open, despite the fact that it often runs run contrary to their goals as a $4T for-profit behemoth. This may have worked in the past, but the "don't be evil" days are very far behind us. I don't see a real future for Andrioid as an open platform unless the community comes together and does a hard fork. Google can continue to d…

What about the Android SDK? I don't think that this is open source, is it? As a developer, when you download an Android SDK you have accept a licence that is not open source, right?

Re: Keep Android Open

#240

Post by tux1968 »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #206
tux1968 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is a real problem. But it doesn't justify arguing uncritically or unrealistically in other areas. I think people should be free to do anything they want with their own devices. They should be able to install any software they want. That's very different than demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire. ie. You should be able to install your own operating system, you don't get to tell them h…

> They should be able to install any software they want. That's very different than demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire. ie. You should be able to install your own operating system, you don't get to tell them how theirs should operate. I don't think the distinction exists the way you're trying to describe. If I should be allowed to install any software I want, surely that includes any .apk I…

No, I don't think you have the inerhent right to install any apk you desire, if their OS is designed to prohibit it. You should be free to try to alter their OS any way you want, but they should not have to make it easy.

And the argument is the same lower down the stack. You shouldn't be able to tell someone how to design their firmware.

The only problem is where the law prohibits us from trying to undo these restrictions, or make modifications ourselves. It's government that restricts us, and we should focus our efforts there.

Post reply on HN