Android’s new sideload settings will carry over to new devices
androidauthority.com
androidauthority.com
It still remains to be seen what the actual requirements are, and even if F-Droid could become "approved" that doesn't mean they want to. Time will tell.
The "security" rationale is horseshit given just how much malware is readily download able on the Play Store. Google never cleans its own house before going after others.
They let so much malware in their stores already.
As somebody put it, Google goes after others without cleaning their own house first. It's just abuse of power at this point.
Don't mistake obscurity for security. FDroid isn't the size to even be noticed by problems that Play Store and AppStore are dealing with.
Now, it might be a problem of vetting at scale or malware being really subtle, but if that's the case Google should focus on improving their process before locking down Android for "security".
I’m betting on the latter. No Kitboga video mentions custom Android apps. What actually appears on almost all videos are online ads/spam or fake celebrity accounts messaging random people on Facebook.
It's funny how you aggressively push solutions that ignore the most common scam vectors investigators encounter. Could it be a coincidence that your proposal conveniently places every aspect of people’s lives at the mercy of big businesses? Or that the scam vector you downplay, ads and social media, just happens to be cash cows for some of the richest companies in history?
We already have plenty of paid lobbyists cheering the transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest. There's no need to do that dirty work for free. Weaponizing the elderly being scammed of their life savings while protecting those that benefit from it is beyond messed up.
Maybe you have the criminal idea of installing an adblocker, for example.
That is not allowed since corporations need to make money.
The government and ad networks need to track you for your benefit.
Ads are needed before listening to each minute of a song.
You must submit to crpyto miners running in the background from the ads, increasing your electricity bill and pollution.
Only USA sanctioned and approved ads are allowed, also. We wouldn't want you seeing an ad from a competing entity, right?
If you install an ablocker, you are a terrorist and broke 324582 American laws.
This is why those scams so often rely on gift cards (or sometimes on cash which a local mule converts to crypto).
If you (not you specifically) are unsure of your abilities to use computers, let a friend or a family member buy a dumbed down device for you or install parental controls or something. Or maybe have clicking the build number 7 times reveal "toddler mode" where you can lock your device down irreversibly as much as you want.
This way, consumers are helpless victims of the same megacorporation, which will use its near-absolute power over the mobile ecosystem (shared with one other megacorporation) to profit on the back of consumers.
This is 2026, for God's sake! How long has this grift been playing out? At least two decades? What will it take people, much less the tech savvy ones, to learn that all these are designs of greedy and power lusting minds?
Basically, Google needs an answer when men in suits ask them why they have technology that enables users to install sanctioned Iranian banking apps.
(Allegedly the main actor behind this push is Singapore)
F-Droid has the benefit that it essentially doesn't have to deal with malicious actors. It's very easy to have a high quality library when there are no malicious actors.
The author is so giddy to defend this monopolistic restriction on Google’s part. Hackers can use F-Droid without annoyance, but this really does kill any chance at normies using it. They absolutely will use the worst spyware on Google Play instead, and the author seemingly loves it.
Seems like a move to get around the Epic Games ruling (and assorted rumbles from countries like India).
> While sadly, it doesn’t look like there will be any ADB command you can send to your phone to make it immediately jump to the end of that 24-hour delay
There's also no evidence that adb-sideloaded app stores will be able to skip PackageInstaller's developer verification enforcement, so no, you will have to wait 24 hours to install F-Droid and actually use it.
The horrors!
Of course, many people who want to de-Google their phones won't want to do either. This is an attack on people who want to keep their lives separate from Google.
Modern handheld computing is such a shitshow...
Sent from my Librem 5.
As long as they keep it like this. The existence of the "only allow side-loading for 7 days" option is definitely worrying.
* iOS - walled garden, so no
* Android:
* * with a Google account and Play Services - a bit less of a walled garden, but still no
* * Android without Google:
* * * GrapheneOS - root or adb not supported, so no
* * * LineageOS - (edit: root or adb not supported, so no - just learned) seems like a viable option although it seems like it depends on Google's development of Android and keeping it FOSS. How's the situation with security updates? Which phones would you recommend? I don't count Samsung or whatever crap as they're generally quite user-hostile.
* Linux - IIRC only PMOS supported FDE. Is that still the case? Are there are good Linux phones? I tried PinePhone a few years ago, but it was crappy. The OS also lacked basic features like new windows showing up inside the screen.
* anything else?
librem 5 is also an option. It is sorta expensive and weak but is the most capable.
https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices
right now im on calyxos but development has been paused for like a year
Fairphones seems OK, although for €549 I'll probably stick to a dumb phone and invest in a better laptop for now. I'm not saying it's too expensive for what it is, though - it's still a tiny computer with all kinds of periphery.
I just wish there was a version with a shitty camera for €50 less or with no Bluetooth for €10 less - you get the idea.
Interestingly, when I went to
https://www.fairphone.com/shop-home
the prices for the headphones were lower for a few seconds and got higher afterwards.
€186.75 -> €249
€74.25 -> €99
while the phone price remained the same. Both are increases of 33.(3)%. Probably a script that determined my location and added a VAT.
> If you choose to root, then I believe its not considered to be "GrapheneOS" any longer and assistance will not be provided for issues you face
Getting no support would suck. Obviously it's a FOSS OS, so it would be community support for the most part, but it's still invaluable when you run into issues.
Like the other poster said, you can get root on GOS. However it's highly ill advised and severely breaks the security model of devices. 99% of the time nobody, especially the average person, needs root on their phone (imo). Allowing that easily just opens up the average person to getting duped into getting their phone rocked with exploits and possibly persistent malware.
There is no reason that a lack of root access should be viewed as a negative within the context of GrapheneOS. In that case why even mention or choose GOS? Just choose an Android fork with poor security or a Linux phone with zero security instead.
Do you also not have root on your laptops or desktops? I don't get why it's so different. I don't just want to open TikTok and Instagram, I want to use my phone computer as a computer. I assumed HN folks would get it.
I would choose something as locked down as GrapheneOS for its security if I was going to use it to install random apps left and right and give them root or run JavaScript from random sites on a browser I gave root to.
Anyway, not having root seems like a very weird way to harden security. What about compartmentalization?
And what's wrong with my my terminal app having root sometimes? How is shadycryptonews.xyz/exploit.js going to leverage it? How would even the Official Authoritarian Police State app leverage it?
I probably don't get it, but it's like people see 2 extremes - run nothing ever in root or run everything in root all the time.
I want to run like 5-6 apps I trust.
Maybe if I wanted to secure a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin, I would be OK with a separate phone without root, but then again I would likely use a hardware wallet. What's the threat model for someone who doesn't blindly give apps root or do anything stupid, really?
The security models of desktop operating systems are far, far behind those of mobile operating systems (Android/iOS). ChromeOS, followed by macOS are the closest to mobile security but are still severely lacking. Windows is farther behind and desktop Linux might as well be minimum security. It’s not even an equivalent comparison as you’re comparing mobile OSes to ones on a platform with a fundamentally worse security architecture.
I mean, even to an extent some of the Linux distributions understand the security problems with the traditional model. Look at what Universal Blue is doing with their images and leaning more into Flatpaks and containers for any developer like etc tooling while actively discouraging installing things via rpm-ostree.
> I would choose something as locked down as GrapheneOS for its security if I was going to use it to install random apps left and right and give them root or run JavaScript from random sites on a browser I gave root to. Anyway, not having root seems like a very weird way to harden security. What about compartmentalization?
The first sentence is inherently incompatible with the security structure of GrapheneOS (for example). The point is to not give applications root, giving them root circumvents basically all of the protections GrapheneOS and Android give the user. Yes, mobile operating systems were designed sandbox first to treat all applications as untrusted. However it doesn’t matter if you’re only giving “trusted” apps root, all it takes is one supply chain exploit, one malicious developer, one anything to make that app with root do something its not supposed to do.
Not having root is the best way to harden security. Mobile OSes are designed to be heavily compartmentalized, each application runs in its own sandbox. Giving an application root circumvents the entire thing, allowing that application in theory to see into other sandboxed apps etc. If you want a real world example look at all the malware exploits that come into iOS via iMessage, one of the only apps on iOS that’s not fully sandboxed like normal apps.
> And what's wrong with my my terminal app having root sometimes? How is shadycryptonews.xyz/exploit.js going to leverage it? How would even the Official Authoritarian Police State app leverage it?
The problem is that we don’t know how they could leverage it, so the solution is to eliminate that pathway entirely.
This is also my issue with the push for Linux phones onto the average person (instead of the community coming together and forking AOSP if they want to escape Google). The platform has zero real sandboxing, and the average person still wants to use Meta apps as shit as they are. These big tech companies’ and governments’ apps would go absolutely crazy on Linux phones.
> What's the threat model for someone who doesn't blindly give apps root or do anything stupid, really?
To not get unknowingly pwned. Realistically even if you have a trusted app, you or the community can only verify that it’s trusted at a specific point in time. Realistically a community cannot verify that an app or package etc is consistently not malicious and will more often than not lag behind in the implementation of the exploit vs its discovery, it doesn’t matter if its closed or open source.
To be clear though my view is that we shouldn’t be pushing root-capable mobile operating systems onto the average person and that no root is infinitely more secure than having it. Maybe companies could provide alternatives, i.e. offering devices with rooted versions available but offering no customer support if something goes wrong with the software. But it certainly shouldn’t be a default available feature for the majority of the population.
—
An edit: Also preventing root allows devices to pass attestation checks. I know it has a dirty connotation in light of how companies are behaving recently, but it really is a security benefit for a device to be able to prove that it’s base operating system is unmodified (i.e. no persistent malware is present).
> The security models of desktop operating systems are far, far behind those of mobile operating systems
What about Qubes? That's my standard. Everything else has worse security almost by definition (since you can virtualize it and increase its security that way).
> The first sentence is inherently incompatible with the security structure of GrapheneOS (for example).
My mistake - sorry. I wanted to say something like:
> I would choose something as locked down as GrapheneOS (no root) for its security if I were to use it to install random apps or to run JS from random sites - examples of exposing myself to unnecessary danger like someone who doesn't know what he's doing. I would choose something with root but wouldn't run random apps with root permissions or JS on a browser started with root permissions.
I somehow mixed both sentences when editing.
> it doesn’t matter if you’re only giving “trusted” apps root, all it takes is one supply chain exploit, one malicious developer, one anything to make that app with root do something its not supposed to do.
That's where we differ on our views of security, agency and responsibility. I own the computer so I should be able to give root to whatever I trust. I already trust the the hardware, the myriad of developers writing the OS, the libraries they've used and so on. Yes, trusting less things is better, but there's a tradeoff and we can easier restrict the OS further and further until we're left with nothing. The OS shouldn't restrict what I can trust and what I can't trust. Why is the OS trying to force me to not trust any app but only the millions on lines of code of the OS itself and the hardware?
> The point is to not give applications root, giving them root circumvents basically all of the protections GrapheneOS and Android give the user.
Giving all applications root might circumvent all protections in GrapheneOS and Android. How does giving 1 application I trust circumvent all protections? Let's say I wrote the app (and I trust myself) and then formally verified it - just for the sake of argument. Although I'd give root to apps I didn't write or verify because I am an adult who can choose what code to trust. We already have important information and already give important permissions to apps that, if compromised, can ruin our lives easily (browsers, communication apps and so on).
> The problem is that we don’t know how they could leverage it, so the solution is to eliminate that pathway entirely.
So apps are both sandboxed and there are robust permissions which make Android much more secure than most desktop OSes, but we can't even give an app root because it might somehow wreck the whole system? I don't get this. By that logic we don't know if any app could compromise any of the system processes that have root (or functionally equivalent access). The solution would be to not run untrusted apps in the same OS at all, to have different computers or some hardened virtualization like Qubes? I get that it's not black and white, but my hypothetical terminal app with root permissions won't be the only process with root permissions running on the OS, so why is it THAT bad to give it root? Especially when I'd run it with root only for certain tasks, just like I don't "sudo ls ~" but just "ls ~".
> This is also my issue with the push for Linux phones onto the average person (instead of the community coming together and forking AOSP if they want to escape Google). The platform has zero real sandboxing, and the average person still wants to use Meta apps as shit as they are. These big tech companies’ and governments’ apps would go absolutely crazy on Linux phones.
Why not try to use existing security mechanisms in various Linux distros (or Qubes) to prevent Meta's apps from going crazy? Additionally, why can I load facebook.com in Firefox on Linux and be relatively certain I won't get pwnd by Facebook even though I have root on Linux? That would mean we trust browser sandboxing more than Android sandboxing. Yet we have root on Linux and can do anything with the browser. What I mean is, you state that Android is so secure, yet we trust it less than untrusted JS on a browser on desktop. If we don't, should we disallow people to run JS (or even CSS, as there have been attacks via CSS) at all?
> my view is that we shouldn’t be pushing root-capable mobile operating systems onto the average person
My view is that we should default on root-capable devices for anyone. If a user doesn't feel sure in their abilities, they may select "I am not sure of my abilities to operate a computer, lock it down for me permanently" option. Otherwise it's on them. We shouldn't be nannies for people. People will eventually learn when enough people get burned. We should be nannies for obvious cases of mental retardation where the person requires round the clock care, but not for everybody. We're not sheep and shouldn't all be treated as sheep even if a lot of us are.
> Also preventing root allows devices to pass attestation checks. I know it has a dirty connotation in light of how companies are behaving recently, but it really is a security benefit for a device to be able to prove that it’s base operating system is unmodified (i.e. no persistent malware is present).
I might see a benefit for workers in a company for work-provided computers because they're company owned, but any attestation for user-owned computers that is imposed on a user will almost inevitably lead to a dystopian future where computers get more and more controlled, locked down and even backdoored without a way to even see if they are. For example, in many jurisdictions you're required to have phone, to use Android or iOS, to have an account with Google or Apple, to not have root and to not run a custom ROM in order to use basic public services or banking (even if my bank account has like 5 bucks in it and I wouldn't care less if it got hacked). That is absolutely wrong and if we don't do something it's going to get much worse in the future. We should fight these restrictions whenever we encounter them. We the people own our lives - we should own our computers and we should own (as in responsibility) our choices.
Edit: I looked at your other comments to see if you had discussed Linux or Android security before (and to avoid repetitive threads). I'll reply to this post of yours here as you'll likely not see that I've replied there:
> Also linux only really has block level encryption, not file based encryption like iOS/Android. It would be trivial for LEO to access your device unless it was totally powered off and then the only protection is LUKS. Or really even if you lose your phone and someone was so inclined to they could just extract all the data if it was powered on but on the “lock screen,” as most if not all desktop (and I’d imagine linux phone) environments do not actually do any encryption or anything when the system is locked, it’s just a cosmetic lock for all intents and purposes.
With LUKS or plain dm-crypt unencrypted data never touches the storage. Small parts of the storage are decrypted in RAM, but what gets written is encrypted. FDE at the block level gives less info to the adversary than file based encryption. With detached /boot (and maybesome other stuff) (like on a USB stick), and plain dm-crypt, you can even have plausible deniability that the storage medium was just overwritten with random data. LEO can't do anything for LUKS or dm-crypt if they can't bypass the lock screen, short of a cold boot attack. That's true for file-based encryption, too. The lock screen (on Linux, at least) isn't related to disk encryption and doesn't have to be.
If you want to partake in social networks, messaging, work communication, banking, etc you're at the mercy of the service's owner and their moat. You can't access Instagram in any other way than their app, and at that point an open OS doesn't help a lot.
I'm sure FOSS can make a feature equivalent Instagram (or Whatsapp, or whatever) but the people aren't in there.
I use all kinds of computers for communication. I'm communicating with you on my desktop. I had a call earlier on my laptop. And a phone IS a computer, so why pretend it's not?
> If you want to partake in social networks, messaging, work communication, banking, etc you're at the mercy of the service's owner and their moat. You can't access Instagram in any other way than their app, and at that point an open OS doesn't help a lot.
I wouldn't use proprietary work tools on a personal device. It's not good hygiene.
I don't care if Instagram requires an app on a non-rooted phone with verified Google attestations because I don't use it and it's not essential.
Banking apps ARE a problem because a lot of banks don't let you use their site without their app at all. That should be solved with regulations - give people a FOSS banking app or, better yet, an API, so they can bank however they want to. Let us create FOSS interfaces for the different banks. Right now we need to revert the regulations who more or less force us to rely on Google or Apple's attestation. Internet banking is important both because there's a trend, even in countries where cash is still widely used, to have places that don't take cash, and because it's a highly regulated system paid for my taxes - I should be able to participate in a modern way with bullshit restrictions allegedly made to prevent someone's grandpa from getting hacked or phished.
But if I can't access my bank online, I'm not going to bow my head and buy a bank-approved phone with a bank-approved OS and a bank-approved $tech_company account. Who banks that often that they really need to do that, outside of places like Sweden where cash is almost dead?
Sure, now get a date, connect with old friends, get invited to a party or join your children's school parent groups exclusively on free software.
>And a phone IS a computer, so why pretend it's not?
I agree we shouldn't, I'm just saying that it's unlikely for that need to meet a large enough demand.
You might consider Instagram, whatsapp or similar apps personally not essential, but for many (I would say most) people they are - if not truly essential for living, at least essential in the sense that they don't have much use for their phone outside of those apps.
Which was my point, as long as the main use of a phone requires passing through meta's (or whoever else's) hoops, it's going to be a hard battle.
The only minimally mainstream uses of a phone that currently lie outside the walled garden are piracy and emulators, and that's already a stretch.
It's tough, but that's a normal part of trying to change the status quo and fight for something you believe in. The people who I truly care for (and who care for me) have actually installed secure FOSS apps to connect with me and invite me to parties. They were reluctant and in some cases it took months of prodding, but it happened. And slowly there's a network effect - friend X and friend Y both have app Z. They might continue to use Meta to communicate between each other, but if and when they realize they want to move away from Meta, they can use Z.
I haven't had to deal with school parent groups in particular, but I have, in just a few cases over the years, managed to convert small groups from proprietary to FOSS solutions. It's hard, it's not the usual outcome (often they stay in their walled garden and I don't join them), but sometimes, just sometimes it works. That means there is actually hope and we can keep fighting the good fight. If we win, everyone wins.
I also understand if someone agrees with me, but reluctantly uses a closed proprietary solution to connect to the school parent group if it's important to them to be in that community. But losing a battle doesn't mean we have to forfeit the whole fight.
I often pay cash in physical stores, but when buying things online I (and every other Dutch person) use Ideal (Wero). That means authorising each payment via my bank, and that means either using my smartphone (GrapheneOS) with the bank's app, or using the bank provided OTP device with my debit card inserted.
Using my smartphone is, unfortunately, the easiest way. I hate both options for the fact that I need to fetch either my smartphone or my debit card though.
Banks want their stupid app because it is the easiest way to keep some client-side secret secure in a nearly fool-proof manner. I can do everything I want in any browser, but authorisation and authentication happens by means of that app, so even just logging in means scanning a QR code with the app, and then continuing in the browser of any device I want.
I think most people use bank several times a week at the very least. Some do it constantly and put debit cards on their smartphones and concentrate everything financial on that single device, but even folk who keep ready amounts of cash on hand and don't buy things online too often bank several times a month, even if just to pay taxes and keep an eye on their finances.
I'm quite surprised people who post here don't get that. I've been lurking for years even though my account is new and even though general hackerishness here has gotten a bit reduced over the years, but it's still HackerNews, not ConsumerNews. No offense implied - I just hoped I'd see more people willing to claim their right to own and modify their OS like a true hacker.
Just how I may be OK with staying at home for months with deliveries and internet access and everything else provided for me, but I want the freedom to go outside. There is rarely anything I need that's outside, to be honest. And outside is more dangerous. But I want to be able to sudo outside whenever I want for whatever reason I want.
I think it's completely reasonable to want to be able to get root on your device. For the exact reasons you mentioned. GrapheneOS allows that.
To actually do so, it's reasonable to have a reason. Otherwise what you're doing is basically running commands with sudo "because you can", which will bite you.
To have a rooted phone just for the sake of the trophy of having a rooted phone is something generally considered worse. Better to have a rootable phone, which you root if or when you have need of it.
This is indeed pretty reasonable. Very easy to root at any time after flashing LineageOS, for example.
If I could point out, the vast majority of people you see writing things as stupid as that are either have a huge stake in the company/industry or the government.
Thanks for all of your other comments in this thread I read them all and it is such useful advice for everyone, even seasoned security people.
It isn't natural to want less freedom.
Such data should be put in (or encrypted by) the hardware-backed keystore. You get to have full access to what the OS does, including seeing what data gets passed into this secure element for encryption or signing (you retain visibility and control), and yet secrets can't be leaked to you or an attacker who tries to extract those secrets
See e.g. your bank card: it's yours, you can choose where to stick it and what transactions it authorizes, but you can't get at the token that serves as proof of possession nor reset the PIN attempts counter. Your phone('s banking app) could work in the same way and has the hardware on board that makes this possible. So you see, it's a choice that you don't get to see what apps are doing and people are scared into believing that access to their own phone is bad. It's a matter of conflicting incentives on the vendor side, not technical risk
If you control the build, you should implement your own Backup Service. You should not just open all apps' data to any app.
It's easier and more reliable to use adb root to rsync everything. No apps need root access that way.
Website: https://sailfishos.org/
Main forum: https://forum.sailfishos.org/
Recently on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47216037 / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47311456 / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41749296
Android has always been lagging on usability/performance/polish, but I stuck with it for the openness and because it generally was first to tryi new things. I remember how people at work laughed at me when I got a Samsung Galaxy Note ("It's so big it looks like you have an iPad in your pocket"), yet a few years later every phone was that size. And now Android is leading with foldables. I love my OnePlus Open, but OnePlus seems to be pulling out from the Western market so further support is looking "iffy", so might as well get an iPhone.
If you look at the rate of growth of the call/text scam industry I think it's entirely possible that android owners are getting scammed out of more money than google themselves makes on the android platform as a whole. It's at least not that far off. Which doesn't even account for the humanitarian issues which they probably feel partially responsible for.
I mean maybe you're even right and they care a little bit about people being scammed. But if you believe that the scamming thing is any more than a pretense for further establishing Google's absolute control over the Android ecosystem, that is just very naive.
Their goal is to make money. Apps installed outside of Google mean less money for them. Ergo, consumer's right to install what they want on their devices must go.
https://security.googleblog.com/2026/02/strengthening-androi... https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-secu...
For more context, the the "reason" they're increasing the friction in sideloading is to prevent one extremely specific scam where someone instructs you over the phone to download a malicious android app, which then steals your banks 2 factor verification code from your notifications and sends it to the scammers. The 24 hour limitation does seem specifically designed to prevent that so I'm inclined to believe them.
Also, if your bank 2fa code is in your notifications, you should switch 2fa methods to something other than sms, or switch banks.
The scammers will find some other way to abuse the very generous permissions allowed by an android app if you prevent the notification attack.
Look, that's an OS issue, not an app distribution issue. If I could use the trusted, vetted software from F-Droid I wouldn't need to worry about this sort of attack.
(Here's another reason it's a bad idea: scammers tend to be very good at navigating the roadblocks you put in to do a thing, often moreso than the people who legitimately want to do the thing, so I wouldn't be surprised if the scammers still have a healthy supply of malicious apps now signed by google. If they can't keep malware off of the play store where they see the malicious code, why do they think they can stop scammers registering as developers to sign their malware?)
(My bank doesn't use SMS by the way everything goes through the official app with biometrics).
This all happened recently because a court case was recently decided that broke Google's monopoly on play store money flows (Google must now allow alternate play stores). These recent changes are simply to try to prop up as much of their play store profit center as they can by restricting what you can do with the computer you purchased.
If the problem is apps that allow remote control of your device, that people can be socially engineered into installing, put up barriers to gaining just that permissions. That approach would actually help motivate the problem (as scammers can now just use Google-approved apps for such things).
If the problem is ads that are pushing scams, Google could start with eradicating them from their own network. They seem to be the primary source. And, god forbid, perhaps even offer an ad blocker integrated in Android. (Yeah, I know.)
If the problem is scammers pretending to be a friend or family member in need of help though social apps, Google could force these apps to help users identify these cases (using local privacy friendly heuristics is course) for inclusion in the Play Store. And no, they wouldn't be able to demand the same from apps installed from elsewhere, but that should be firmly outside of their sphere of responsibility. And casual users would be extremely like to stick with the default app store anyhow.
Note that all three of these proposals provide a measure of safety from the problems they are addressing much larger than what Google is attempting by banning all non-Google-authorized applications.
Do you have a better idea?
Probably the best option would be the ability to lock down your own device somehow (i.e. put the toggle in the opposite direction by default). This at least lets others around someone vulnerable to this protect them (and probably much more effectively, as the controls can be a lot tighter than 'we once saw an ID we believed was real')
If the solution is that nobody has control of their digital life anymore (see also attempts to require client-side scanning and verify user age, which don't work if said user can override it) then we've lost sight of the bigger picture
To address your question, there should be a straightforward option during device setup. If you're first attaching your account to the device, you simply check a box that says this is an advanced user's phone. You can put it behind the same kind of scary pop-ups that web browsers have when they're about to serve you an HTTP page, or when the HTTPS certificate is self-signed.
It's the most obvious, straightforward, user-friendly approach, and it was never even discussed.
Fwiw, it was "discussed" in the sense that the person we're arguing with meant upthread ("let's discuss a good solution instead of this boring repetitive outrage"), but it's not like Google listens to that so any such discussion is pointless anyway. It is indeed the obvious solution and it comes up in each of these threads, but believers like GP can always be new rationalizations of why Google doesn't implement one proposal or another
Google claims this to be a very common or majority attack vector.
"The Global Scam Report also found that scams were most often initiated by sending scam links via various messaging platforms to get users to install malicious apps and very often paired with a phone call posing to be from a valid entity."
https://security.googleblog.com/2024/02/piloting-new-ways-to...
> If you're first attaching your account to the device, you simply check a box that says this is an advanced user's phone.
I completely agree this is a perfectly valid solution but what about those who already setup their device? The security of the checkbox only works if you click it before someone attempts to scam you.
They will not share the data because the data goes against their public stance.
Apks are already very annoying to install for your average user. The scams will target the web, the playstore and then as a very last resort, direct installs
I know a lot more people that install newpipe than people that got scammed by any means, and have never heard of anyone being asked to install an app by a scammer
If they really care about scams, the first result when I search for chatgpt is a fake app with a fake logo. Maybe they should start by tackling the scams on the play store as the play store is the far west.
Google choose an OS using a VM by design is insecure by default....
ITS NOT US USERS FAULT!
Also, I think it's disingenuous to say that scams are predominantly powered by sideloading. I think the vast majority of the scams that are perpetrated use apps directly from the Play Store.
They're also growing rapidly, so those numbers might already be double in 2026
1. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/dec/02/scam-stat...
"The Global Scam Report also found that scams were most often initiated by sending scam links via various messaging platforms to get users to install malicious apps and very often paired with a phone call posing to be from a valid entity."
https://security.googleblog.com/2023/10/enhanced-google-play... https://security.googleblog.com/2024/02/piloting-new-ways-to... https://blog.google/intl/en-in/products/launching-enhanced-f...
> Google’s been working hard to relive everyone’s fears...
I somehow doubt there's a team at Google dedicated to roleplaying the nightmares of all living people :-D
When I saw your user name, I was like "I wonder if that's the C++ s11n guy", and sure enough, confirmed it by viewing your profile.
Glad to see you're still alive and kickin' -- hope you are doing well, despite life's challenges.
That's a name i've not heard in ages. That project was abandoned back in 2012 or so for lack of interest on all sides. The domain and site were sold back in 2014-ish to someone who blatantly misrepresented themselves as wanting to keep that piece of internet history online, but turned out to be a SEO operation which only wanted it because the domain had a decent reputation with Google. Lesson learned.
> Glad to see you're still alive and kickin' -- hope you are doing well, despite life's challenges.
Thank you and right back at you!
> ADB would be unaffected, and any power users who needed to install an app straight away could always connect their Android device to a computer and use ADB commands to manually install - no delay at all.
So in practice this won't be an issue for anyone tech-savvy who uses their Android device with apps outside of the Play Store, as they can simply install through the ADB mechanism via a separate device. It can even be done using WebUSB.
However, the many, many people worldwide who lack such technical knowledge, and are more susceptible to being scammed via malicious app installs because of it, are still protected by this new process Google are introducing.
- accepting that they take the finger now makes me worried about the rest of the hand
- it seems like a complete strawman argument: I have never heard of anyone getting scammed by being guided through system menus to enable app installations and then downloading and installing an apk from the scammer, as opposed to just going to the play store and installing e.g. teamviewer
- apps are already a pain about users with access to their own devices. If they can somehow detect that you're in "advanced flow" mode... that's going to be a real joy and further discourage/scare away people from using this
- my current understanding of the finger they've given us is that it does not include publishing apps via the play store and outside of the play store unless you change the app ID. One signing key is bound to one app ID when the developer does the verification to be in the Play Store and their code is not installable after compiling by an independent party. F-droid still can't exist in its current form
So this is vendor lock-in to an online account being sold as a way to "win" against a problem _created_ by said vendor? I would prefer a per-device wait time and I sincerely hope a Google account will not be a hard requirement. I didn't consider this initially.
Google is in the process of stealing the shirts from our backs and selling them back to us. Whoever wrote this article is drinking the kool-aid. This should NOT be presented as a positive thing. Some of us use Android without a Google account and would still like to sideload.
And even if I disregard that for a moment, what's up with the author being a mouthpiece for Google?
> Google's latest concession makes the sideloading controversy a big nothingburger
> Opting out is going to be even less of a problem than we thought
> This afternoon, Google’s Matthew Forsythe shares some answers to questions he’s gotten about the minutiae of how this process all works — and he’s got some very, *very* good news for us.
(emphasis theirs)
> Doing that once with every new phone already sounded perfectly manageable. But now Google clarifies that even that won’t be necessary, with the opt-out able to be transferred as we upgrade phones. That is maybe just the best news we could have gotten here, and hopefully it’s enough to calm everyone down about the sideloading-sky falling.
It was really nice last year when I moved to a new device. I restored my last SMS, call log, and contact backup with the open source app I use for that, then loaded the rest of the apps I use from their APKs. It was a lot like getting a new PC. Very enjoyable.
For example, lots of people use phones without any google play framework installed. Without that framework, how does it "carry over"?
This just raises more questions about how this whole process works.
Is it only the play api doing so? If so, then if you de-google, this entire problem goes away?
If not, then how can you 'carry over' to a phone unless you also install the play framework? Seems like that's unhelpful.
If you run GrapheneOS, LineageOS or whatever, then it's not real Android, and the entire problem of your OS restricting you from installing apps does not exist.
WAT? how is that even better than the ability to skip the wait time?
you are right, i am not seriously bothered by the wait time, i'd just activate it on a new phone, wait a day and be done with it. i have had to wait two weeks to unlock a xiaomi phone, so this is not that of a big deal. (besides i am not going to be affected anyways because i use a custom rom, but that's besides the point. let's assume i will be affected)
who changes their phone so often that being able to carry over the setting to skip the wait is a win?
i am embarrassed that i fell for this article, believing that there would actually be a genuine improvement to sideloading.
Ah yes, having to now send in a government ID to publish apps on the Play Store is a "big nothingburger". Kindly piss off, megacorp bootlicker Stephen Schenck.
They're still moving the Overton window on making Android a walled garden. They're playing a longer game.
It's really not. Try to realise that it's not meant to be Google's phone and they shouldn't be "letting" me do things
Also, let's be clear about the mobile landscape right now. Many apps aren't written in Java or Swift, but instead are being transpiled from other languages like TypeScript and using UI libraries that aren't locked to the mobile platform itself.
When a new mobile platform enters the space it will require some react-native and capacitor glue code and we are in business.
The mods or whoever are welcome to remove my comment if they think it's too far out of line.
WTF Concession? Why are we asking google for permission to use the devices we bought as they see fit?
Ok, google is doing what is best for them, abusing users. But the manufacturers are really to blame here because the devices are by default locked to what google and them decide. There is no Market Choice here.
step 2: make situation tiiiny amount better
step 3: proclaim this as "a win"
...really?
Not even a small fraction of a percentage of scams come from installing software normally, but only from Google Play store.
> Play store is the largest distributor of spyware and viruses for Android.
I think all companies are taking part in somewhat of a double-speak. Meta is lobbying for child safety and so many other things.
I feel like they really can't come up loud and say what exact reasons they are doing this (for locking down Android) and thus have to use this as an excuse.
It's all smokescreens and mirror to a certain degree.
This change is not about stopping malware/scams. Malware/scams is just the gaslighting excuse for the change.
The actual reason for the change is to try to protect playstore profits. With the lawsuit that forced them to allow alternate "stores" they saw the money stream shrinking, and this is their attempt at propping up the money flow for as long as possible.
Who (besides you, dear HN reader) reads googleblog.com, androidauthority.com and other sites that discuss these topics
Is it only a small fraction of a percentage of Android users
When Google makes the obviously bogus claim that Google Play policies, e.g., "sideloaoding" restrictions, are intended to "protect users", who is it addressing. Who is the audience. Is it the "average" Android users that Google claims to be protecting. Is it the Android users who prefer F-Droid that do not need Google's "help" to avoid scams
What if Google Play policies protect Google from competition (cf. protecting users from scams) and this could have an effect on the stock price or on the profits of "app developers" or "ad tech" companies. Who would be interested in that information. Who would accept bogus claims about "protecting users" without question
If a device doesn't allow the user full control, then it isn't your device.
You are renting it from a duopoly that will bend over backwards to give all your data to the government! Also selling it to other corporations.
It is no excuse that an extremely small amount of ancient people over 85 who have never used technology in their life got scammed by some foreigner who worked them over for a full day or two.
That will happen regardless of whatever immoral restrictions are placed on our devices.
If you aren't smart enough to use the tech, don't use it.