621–630 of 764 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The security of Android doesn't mean much to me as long as the front door is left open by design for Google, and therefore the government, to directly spy on you.
What front door are you referring to?
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 uses the app for 2FA, and that became a sort of a standard in Brazil, AFAIK. Mine at least gave me the option of using an RSA SecurID or sth alike when I asked, but I don't know how much it would cost me.
My stock broker on the other hand does 2FA exclusively on mobile (and only Android and iOS). The same for the health insurer.
My car insurer didn't force me to so far, which I find strange, given their interest in tracking my location and speed.
These were some of the major factors leading me to give up on using a feature phone when I tried, a few years ago. It was a good experience, especially at those times of pandemics and political instability, but the inconveniences were many.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and it should be 100% legal for you to hack it. Get the soldering iron out, and the debugger, and alter it to your hearts content. You bought it, you own it. But the supplier should be under no obligation to make any of that easy for you. Just like they shouldn't be required to offer it in pink if that's your favorite color. It's up to you to paint it yourself. And if you want to load random apk's, you'll have t…
I think you misunderstood me, the software is part of the device I paid for and own. If I tell someone to install a light switch in my living room and then it occasionally switches states when someone presses another switch at my outside wall and occasionally refuses working, I don't feel like they fulfilled their contractual obligation. Same with smartphones and software. I would agree with you if I would want addit…
If the light switch you bought, has a little daylight sensor on it, and turns off when the sun is out, and that's what it does.. you may not like that light switch. You might want one that "does what you want, because you paid for it!" but then you should have purchased a different one, or made a light switch you actually liked. Of course you are free to get the soldering iron out, and try to change the light switch. But the manufacturer is under no obligation to make it easy for you to change the way it works.
That is fair, and right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want maximum freedom, for everyone. That includes developers. We should be free to produce the software as we see fit. If that means we think that our users are best served by having devices that are locked down against scammers etc, then we should be free to produce locked down devices like that. And as users we should be free to buy only devices that respect maximum capabilities and customization. There is a tens…
There's a very easy way to achieve maximum freedom: punish people who take away other people's freedom. To achieve maximum freedom, the one freedom people must never be allowed to have is the freedom to take away other people's freedom. Google must be punished for every software module they wrote whose sole purpose is to make you less free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying that if I open a restaurant I'm free to poison the food and you can just decide whether to eat there or not and no government should be able to forbid me to do this?
Comparing blocking of malware apps with poisoning food is a type of dishonesty you probably recognized yourself when you typed it out.
I want Google as an app, not OS. Hear me out. Imagine an open device where you can run Google as just another sandboxed app. Inside, they can exert all the control they want. My bank and government can force me to use Google. Then, at least I control my hardware and my OS. It's just nasty to have your device and OS controlled by an antagonistic entity. I see this in people why have used antagonistic software for deca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We heard from developers who were concerned about the barrier to entry when building apps intended only for a small group, like family or friends. We are using your input to shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements. In classic Google fashion, they hear the compla…
Even restricting the mitigation to "students and hobbyists" is bad. I should have the right to have parents, friends or anyone use a "free" store that is not under control of Google if the user and app developer wish so. But also, somehow there should be something done to avoid the monopoly forcing to use the Google services. Like major institutions like bank, gov and co being forced to provide alternatives like a we…
Yes, but we also need to stop thinking like we’re trying to please the ghost of Steve Jobs. There is no ”store”. There are installers. You distribute them how you see fit, probably through the web.
These ”alternative stores” angle is a controlled dissent corporate plan B, much like how recycling was propped up by the fossil fuel industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those things that you mentioned you can do it on the website No, unfortunately some things can't be. There are venues that provide tickets exclusively via mobile applications, for instance.
"There are venues that provide tickets exclusively via mobile applications, for instance." Turns out Ticketmaster still has ticket printing machines at such venues Was at a game at one of them, claimed I had a problem with the app and after some negotiation at the ticket window a millennial printed me a ticket Why do they still have the printers The "I'm having a problem with the app" strategy can work in other conte…
I have recent (October and November, 2025-- venues in Indianapolis, IN and Cincinnati, OH) personal experience with this. With one venue I was able to play the "confused old man" card (via phone) and get the box office to print my tickets and hold them at will call.
At another venue I called prior to my show and tried the same tactic. They told me flat out "no phone, no admittance, tough luck for you" and cited the warnings and terms on the Ticketmaster website that I'd already agreed-to. I didn't want to chance losing out on $300 of tickets I bought so I knuckled under and loaded the Ticketmaster app on my wife's iPhone.
I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you say it is, and I don't have the stomach to risk being denied access to events I bought tickets for-- particularly at the pricing levels of today's shows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I want a "phone", i.e., small form factor computer, that can run something like NetBSD, or Linux. But I have no intention of using it for commercial transactions. Mobile banking is not why I want to run a non-corporate OS > I want to use it for recreation, research and experimentation I am a firm believer that phones are personal computers and should have all the end user freedom we have come to expect from persona…
So the world should cared to your needs when literally almost every adult has a phone even in third world countries? Before you say “what about the poor people” in the US at least, even poor people can get a subsidized free phone through the UCF (?) government fund Also see: no I’m not going to waste development time di you can get to a website I develop with JS disabled or so you can use lynx
The assumption that everyone has a "smart phone" running locked-down Android or iOS is unreasonable. Just as race, sex, religion, national origin, etc, are protected classes, the "phoneless" should be a protected class. Denying people who choose not to use a locked down phone basic interaction with your business should be legally equivalent to posting a "No blacks allowed" sign on your door, and the consequences should be the same.
> Also see: no I’m not going to waste development time di you can get to a website I develop with JS disabled or so you can use lynx
I don't see what this non-sequitur has to do with the exchange. I didn't bring anything up about Javascript.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet the Play Store and App Store are the largest vectors of scams and malware out there, to the tune of billions of dollars a year. We should be prioritizing securing our systems so that they run only what we want them to run, instead of putting all of that trust in gatekeepers who make money when they let you get scammed.
They are the largest vector of scams and malware because they've centralized it and it's hard to deliver malware and scams otherwise. That malevolence will always happen and centralizing it ensures a single avenue that can be controlled and measured and importantly sued when they fuck up. I can't sue f-droid when they allow malware on my device, that's one of many reasons why I don't use it, that's why nobody uses it…