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 webapp when they provide app tied to the Google play store.
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.
The EU and every other nation with digital sovereignty concerns need to make this happen to both Apple and Google.
These are our devices. The giants are camping.
The guy's name? Google. ;-)
Well, unless you use one of the many crappy Android devices that never get security updates, are running old kernels, old vendor security patch levels, miss all Android security patches, except applying the backported security bulletins every three months (1-2 months late). Yet, Google is happy to certify them as Android devices.
It was never about security, it is about control. If it was about security, they would have revoked the GMS licenses of pretty much every vendor outside Google themselves and maaaaybe Samsung, until vendors actually started caring about security. If it was about security, there would not be as many scam apps in the Play Store itself.
Back to your sister, the proper solution is to educate her (and everyone else) not to give apps unfettered access when they ask you to, plus let Google implement more security measures that systems like GrapheneOS already have (contact scopes, sensor permissions, network access permissions, etc.).
It also doesn't help that mobile carriers can delay updates for months. Thanks T-Mobile.
People forget to ask the most important question: security for whom, and from what.
> Well, unless you use one of the many crappy Android devices that never get security updates
The industry still doesn't understand the concept of delegation of authority and the fundamental role it plays in everyday life.
It also doesn't understand the idea of people making mistakes and the need to have robust recovery paths either.
It also doesn't understand the idea of people making mistakes and the need to have robust recovery paths either.
Thousands of people get scammed and have their lives ruined every year, so deprecating passwords is absolutely the right move
1. Stop requiring computers/phones for everything. Your 91 year old grandma isn't going to make her way through your super cool very intuitive 2FA magic link email confirmation system, and I don't WANT to make my way through your super cool very intuitive 2FA magic link email confirmation system.
2. teach the people who need to use computers, how to use them.
> Stop requiring computers/phones for everything.
Ah yes, that sounds straight forward. Let us know when you’ve deployed that to prod.
Is "that guy" in the room with us right now?
And that example isn't random, I just tried and the first result for me is a counterfeit app with the logo of chatgpt copied .
Android is massive and extremely popular and I know several people who have been scammed already. It is important that Google makes this harder for scammers.
Google is not doing this to harm developers but to protect their users.
Google shouldn't be able to hold a vertical monopoly, on what apps can run, what os's are allowed and what hardware can be used on devices that run Android, rest solely on this weak excuse that someone might harm grandma.
Oh, and of course, if grandma gets scammed by a app in the Google store, Google isn't in any way held responsible. Such garbage, two-faced bs.
Is it that people "somehow miss this simple logic", or is it that they weigh security and freedom differently than you?
Moreover, there are better ways to protect against malware: 1. educate people; 2. rather than using whitelisting, use blacklisting (similar to XProtect on macOS).
Finally, the argument is not very strong on Google's side, since the Play Store itself has had its history of scams. Which, again is easier to protect against by educating people. No, don't put your banking information in a random app you downloaded from the Play Store (use the app that your bank tells you to). Do not install random keyboards from the Play Store. Etc.
We live in a dark age where the majority of people would gladly give their freedom so the don't have to be responsible.
1. The ownership of security can be entrusted with the user. For example, if the user wants to install a 3rd party app store that doesn't use developer registration, they should be able to do so. The consequences of that decision should be on the owner. FDroid is one such app store. But I trust it over play store any day.
2. Careless users can be prevented from making such decisions, and capable users can be prevented from making mistakes, by careful UI designs that provide copious warnings and require deliberate actions. We have plenty of examples for both. An example for a system that prevents mistakes with warnings is the certificate trust override in browsers. They allow you to override rejection of untrustworthy certificates, but not before you read a lengthy warning message and click a couple of buttons. Similarly, an example of a deliberate action is when you want a repo to be deleted on github or gitlab. They force you to type in the repo name as confirmation. Not only does it take multiple key strokes, it forces you to review what you're actually deleting.
> Google is not doing this to harm developers but to protect their users.
No. Google is doing this to satisfy their insatiable appetite for profit growth by squeezing their current revenue streams. This protects no one, but their shareholders and top executives. I'm a bit ashamed to have to explain this on HN.
Don't be. Like it or not, this is a site run by venture capitalists and populated most heavily by software engineers, both of which have historically been treated well by capitalism.
Although it's improved in recent years, I've noticed there's still a lot of corporate bootlickers on this site.
Yes, it saddens me too.
But people need to realize that most of the population aren't treated well or paid well. Most of us don't have the luxury of being SWEs, or even white-collar workers for that matter. Most of us struggle to even put food on the table and have to scrounge week to week, let alone month to month.
So, I'm not bothered by the bootlickers downvoting me. At best, they're fooling themselves; at worst, they're class traitors.
If you ask me, the time for tactful language is long over.
+1
> If you ask me, the time for tactful language is long over.
Sadly, I reached the same conclusion a while ago. Subtlety seems to have lost all value and too much is at stake to keep on appealing to everyone's sensibility.
And also monopoly.
This is exactly the thing for which Apple gets bashing. Closed garden.
Does a business have right to pay literal pennies per hour if it manages to find people willing to work at that pay ?
Does a business have right to lace food products with addictive substances for repeat customers and profit ?
All these cases are already happening today at some level depending on who you ask. But they don’t tilt to extremes because we have laws in place to maintain balance between business needs and collective good.
This move by Google will tilt that balance forever towards absolute duopoly in mobile computing space. It is time for legislation to avoid that.
Not after creating de facto duopoly.