Your phone is about to stop being yours

Respectfully, I think this is the wrong fight. And I fear it may be counter-productive, because all the effort put into asking Google to make it a little less painful to install an unverified app is not put into the real fight.

IMHO, it should be fine for Google or Apple to do whatever they want with their OS. What should be forbidden is to prevent people from installing an alternative OS on their hardware. But this is not all Google's doing there: all the Android manufacturers are actively preventing users from doing it.

When I buy an Android phone, I should be able to unlock the bootloader, add custom signing keys, install whatever OS I choose, and relock the bootloader. Interestingly, currently this is possible on Google Pixels, but not on most other Android devices.

When I use an Android phone, a company building an app should not be allowed to ban my OS "because it is not the Google OS". That is, using Play Integrity or whatever they do to ban alternative OSes should be forbidden. But again, this is not entirely Google's fault: the companies choose to add those checks in their ** app. And it is a bigger problem there, because while I can install an alternative OS on my Android device (e.g. GrapheneOS or LineageOS), I can NOT install an alternative client for e.g. my bank.

Back to side-loading: really it's mostly a problem for F-Droid on Stock Android, as far as I can see. And really, people who care about using F-Droid would probably be happy to use an alternative OS, if it was reasonably possible. We should fight for that.

I agree. There isn't even a need to create alternative OSes: they exist. Be it Linux phones or (more realistically for the vast majority of users) AOSP-based OSes like GrapheneOS and LineageOS.

The real problem is that:

1. Most manufacturers prevent us from unlocking the bootloader, adding custom signing keys and relocking it. Interestingly the Google Pixels allow that. This should be mandatory.

2. Many apps choose to ban alternative OSes by use of Play Integrity, i.e. checking that the OS is signed by Google. This should be illegal.

3. Bonus: it should be mandatory for manufacturers to make it reasonably easy to support from an alternative OS. That means publishing device trees, for instance. This should be mandatory.

I really believe we should fight for that. Then we wouldn't have to care about what Google does on their side.

> "fuck you, I've got mine" is not only sad as a position in general, it is also a bad tactical choice

I don't think the parent was saying that.

My opinion is that it is actually the real fight: it should be mandatory for manufacturers to make it possible to have an alternative OS (which includes allowing to unlock/relock the bootloader and add custom signing keys) and it should be mandatory for big companies (e.g. banks) to not ban those alternative OSes with Play Integrity or whatever goddamn checks they make.

Fighting about what Google does on the Google flavour of AOSP is a distraction, IMO.

Happened to me. Stopped working on GrapheneOS because of some goddamn check they make, but still runs on an outdated /e/OS signed with the Google test keys (i.e. without a proper secure boot).

The real fight is to prevent companies (like those banks) to do that kind of shit. And to force manufacturers into allowing us to install alternative systems, instead of preventing unlocking/relocking of the bootloader for instance).

Which is because other manufacturers don't allow you to unlock/relock the bootloader, right?