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

Your phone is about to stop being yours

keepandroidopen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 927 posts

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#421

Post by giancarlostoro »

brandonhorst wrote: post #176
fainpul wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even after Google puts this crap in place, you can still uplodad your own apps to your own Android devices, using ADB. Doing the same for iOS, using Xcode, costs you USD 100 or more (depending on country) per year . I'm in no way defending Google here, just pointing out you're going from bad to worse and think it's a good thing.

This is not true, running your code on your phone with Xcode has always been free.

Even free-er with Expo and React Native. Course then you have to touch JavaScript ;)

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#424

Post by handedness »

fsflover wrote: post #389
kuhsaft wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sandboxing and permissions provide a different type of security than application signatures. Sandboxing can limit app capabilities, but it doesn't change the fact that you can accidentally grant a malicious application permissions. Application signatures and developer identification bring a different kind of application security. It provides the security of societal legal systems and legal ramifications for malicious…

> but it doesn't change the fact that you can accidentally grant a malicious application permissions Do you also support the nanny states that decide how you should be parenting your children? (The age verification etc.)

You have a consistent habit of posing complex questions in your rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question

Please don't do that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#426

Post by kube-system »

Zak wrote: post #373
kube-system wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really going to have ecosystem effects? Surely the small portion of power-users who are bothering to intentionally sideload apps can click a couple of buttons. Or just load via ADB and avoid the entire thing. The entire point here is to prevent scam actors from using a false sense of urgency to defraud people. That is a serious vulnerability that needs to be addressed somehow , and I think this is a good compro…

> The entire point here is to prevent scam actors from using a false sense of urgency to defraud people. That is a serious vulnerability that needs to be addressed somehow Does it, and if it does, does it need to be addressed by an OS vendor creating a mechanism to ban developers for most users? I'm not convinced of the former, and I'm certain the latter is bad. I predict within ten years, we will see this used again…

What do you mean "ban developers for most users"? Most users get their apps through the play store, which will still exist here. Some users sideload apks, which is also a functionality that will still exist.

> we will see this used against something that is not malware.

See what exactly used against something that is not malware? The Play Store already has requirements other than "don't be malware". If you're talking about the sideloading requirements, all of these requirements apply to every app, not just malware.

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#427

Post by bakugo »

akramachamarei wrote: post #162
bakugo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They really aren't. The number of apps requiring Play Integrity grows every day, my own bank's app hasn't worked in years and I've long given up on it, I just use it on a second stock device now. And Google has an answer to the "just install the APK from somewhere else" workaround, too. Many apps now integrate a check that prevents them from running if they're not properly linked to the Play Store.

Are banking apps much more useful than banking websites, anyway?

Don't know what the landscape is like in the US, but here in Europe, many banks require the app for any sort of online payment. There is no alternative. If your phone isn't stock, you're screwed.

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#428

Post by monooso »

kube-system wrote: post #327
monooso wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You deliberately took the second quote out of context, in order to (attempt to) refute it. Here's the quote, with context: > Starting September 2026, a silent update, nonconsensually pushed by Google, will block every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with Google, signed their contract, paid up, and handed over government ID. Every app and every device, worldwide, with no opt-out. That is not false, it's…

??? We literally quoted the exact same text. The plan does not outline what that quote does. You only have to do all of the things the quote claims you do in one of the three possible deployment flows. In "advanced flow" you don't have to do any of them.

No, you quoted some of the text. Hence my statement that you removed the context. If you read the full quote, it's clearly stating that you cannot opt-out of the update.

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#429

Post by Worf »

kuhsaft wrote: post #338
functionmouse wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nah it was considered more open for users.

This is the initial press release for the Open Handset Alliance, the collaborators for the creation of Android: https://web.archive.org/web/20260420021444/https://www.openh... Nowhere is their goal to allow users complete control of their device. Android was built as an open-OS for the mobile device industry, not end-users. Android might have been considered more open than other mobile OSes by users, but it was never…

> Nowhere is their goal to allow users complete control of their device. Android was built as an open-OS for the mobile device industry, not end-users.

The fact that having root access is not the default supports that. Without root we're just "consumers" and that's how they see us. There's a lot of discussion about the security model of Android and how root is bad. But we've come to the point to argue that having root access is not only less secure but that we don't need root at all. A lot of replies, even on HN, are like:

> Why would you even need root access? What is it you're trying to accomplish?

That's a much bigger security smokescreen than the one in TFA. Sure, having root may be dangerous, especially if you don't know what you're doing, but it's still a choice. Having no phone or doing banking IRL or not downloading apps from the Play Store you haven't heard of before would also be more secure. But these 3 options don't align to the financial gain the consumers would bring to the providers. The consumers having no root, on the other hand, benefits the providers.

Post reply on HN