Live data from Hacker News

Keep Android Open

f-droid.org

321–330 of 764 posts

Re: Keep Android Open

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not? It's their operating system It's my phone.

Of course it's your phone, but the whole point of using Android is that it makes a lot of choices for you. It forces a billion things on you, and this is really no different than any of the others. Everything from UI colors, to the way every feature actually works. For instance, should you be able to text message one million people at a time? You might want to, but Android doesn't offer that feature. Do you want to i…

The whole point of using Android for most users is that they have no other choice if they need a mobile phone.

Google killed every other competition via dumping and shady business practices. Sure, you can go to iOS, but that is even more closed and restrictive, not to mention the devices are overpriced.

Re: Keep Android Open

#322
post #38
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common answer but it does not apply to at least most of Europe. Because of regulations most banks require to install their app either on iOS or Android to act as a 2FA device. One of my banks gave me a hardware device 20 years ago. When its battery dies I'll have to use their app and my fingerprint.

If you really don't have an alternative in Europe, buy the cheapest Googled Android device (less than $100 or euros), and use that as a glorified 2FA device. It's not ideal because you have to pay for it, but on the other hand Android devices with unlockable bootloaders (mostly Google Pixels now) tend to be cheaper than iThings. A Pixel 9a or 10a running Graphene for everyday use plus a cheap Android phone that stays…

How do you install the bank app if google does not allow you to install APKs manually / with a 3rd party store? You have to go with Google Play. Which requires a Google account. So I can't do it. That's the whole point of this thread: it would not be possible to use Android without a Google account.

Re: Keep Android Open

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of TFA, if you read it, is that they SAID they would do that, but there has since been ZERO evidence that they actually will. This feature is not present in anything they have released since that statement.

On the other hand, blocking installation of non-notarized apps is not present in anything they released since that statement either, as far as I know.

It would be foolish to depend on that & far harder to get ridd of it if they put it in place. There needs to be clear statement and verification method to make sure they really are backtracking.

Anything else won't do.

Re: Keep Android Open

#324
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't though, because there's a ecosystem of banking/insurance/whatever apps that have bought into the android/iphone lockdown mindsete that people will simply be locked out of. Open alternatives can grow when there is a viable means of slow growth, and cutting off the oxygen to such things is the implicit intent.

> banking/insurance/whatever apps I know banking apps are the typical example, but I've always wondered why. I use my bank's app maybe once or twice a year when I need to Zelle someone, which I only need to do when they don't have Venmo. (Unless we consider Venmo a banking app.) I only have one bank's app installed, the rest of my banks I only interact with over their website, on desktop. As for insurance, I've never…

I can't deposit checks over the website, and I use a bank with no physical locations near me.

Re: Keep Android Open

#325
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been flashing phones for over 2 decades and have never bricked a phone. How did you manage that?

Are you seriously implying that flashing phones doesn’t risk bricking them or you’re not aware of that risk are you serious?

I am seriously unaware of the risks and also flashing brand new phones :)

Re: Keep Android Open

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can ban persons from doing things, I rather not have them do. Companies are legal persons, so why shouldn't this apply to them? At some point ignoring behaviour is not making it go away, it needs to be actively worked against, otherwise it will become (practically) mandatory.

the core problem with banning is who is doing it and why, right? once we allow it, it goes into the hands of the “politicians” and then books get banned today, ice scream gets banned tomorrow, math gets banned the next day…

Which is why the more serious consequences a law has the harder it is to change it and the more people need to sign off on it. There is stuff that needs simple majorities, stuff that is in the constitution and requires a super majority, stuff that can't be changed short of abolishing the current state and stuff that can't be changed at all, because it is just an assertion that is independently on anyone asserting it.

This is kind of a "solved*" thing in theory, not so much in practice of course.

*solved meaning we have a proper process established

Re: Keep Android Open

#327
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't though, because there's a ecosystem of banking/insurance/whatever apps that have bought into the android/iphone lockdown mindsete that people will simply be locked out of. Open alternatives can grow when there is a viable means of slow growth, and cutting off the oxygen to such things is the implicit intent.

> banking/insurance/whatever apps I know banking apps are the typical example, but I've always wondered why. I use my bank's app maybe once or twice a year when I need to Zelle someone, which I only need to do when they don't have Venmo. (Unless we consider Venmo a banking app.) I only have one bank's app installed, the rest of my banks I only interact with over their website, on desktop. As for insurance, I've never…

Banks often use their app for a second factor auth. here.

Re: Keep Android Open

#328

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…

>The impact is a direct threat to independent AOSP distributions like Murena's e/OS/ (which I'm personally using). If installing a basic APK eventually requires a Google-verified developer ID, maintaining a truly de-Googled mobile OS becomes nearly impossible.

I have trouble understanding why this is a threat to AOSP distribution. I would have said quite the opposite actually, I don't see why they would not remove the verification and that's an incentive for people to use their project instead of Google Android.

Re: Keep Android Open

#329
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this finally pushes adoption of truly open Linux phones, then this will end up being a good thing, and the greatest favor that Google could do for the open source community. Tragically, Linux phones have languished and are in an absolute state these days, but a lot of the building blocks are in place if user adoption occurs en masse. (Shout out to the lunatics who have kept this dream alive during these dark years…

It won't though, because there's a ecosystem of banking/insurance/whatever apps that have bought into the android/iphone lockdown mindsete that people will simply be locked out of. Open alternatives can grow when there is a viable means of slow growth, and cutting off the oxygen to such things is the implicit intent.

The best solution for this is to buy a $30 burner phone at Walmart and use it unactivated, tethered to your main de-Googled device. You can use the burner for only tasks requiring Play Integrity.

Make sure to leave one star reviews on all such apps that you run into.

Re: Keep Android Open

#330
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't though, because there's a ecosystem of banking/insurance/whatever apps that have bought into the android/iphone lockdown mindsete that people will simply be locked out of. Open alternatives can grow when there is a viable means of slow growth, and cutting off the oxygen to such things is the implicit intent.

> banking/insurance/whatever apps I know banking apps are the typical example, but I've always wondered why. I use my bank's app maybe once or twice a year when I need to Zelle someone, which I only need to do when they don't have Venmo. (Unless we consider Venmo a banking app.) I only have one bank's app installed, the rest of my banks I only interact with over their website, on desktop. As for insurance, I've never…

My bank sends me an alert when my card is used to make a transaction - handy for spotting fraud.

I get an alert when a payment comes it - handy for knowing if a client has paid.

I can quickly check my balance - handy for knowing if I can afford another round of drinks.

I can repay a friend in two taps - handy if they've paid for dinner.

Is anything essential? No. Is it something people use multiple times per day? Yes!

Post reply on HN