• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: November 20th, 2024

help-circle


  • I understand the paper trail that this is creating.

    But it does come across as Google gatekeeping.

    For example, what if I want to build an app, and distribute it outside of app stores with zero involvement from Google? It appears that cannot be done because I’d need to identify with Google through the developer program.

    What happens if Google doesn’t like that I made a chat app that bypasses censorship in specific country, it gets removed from play store, so i publish it on my website. What if Google gets mad at this and flags my identification?

    Suddenly no one can install my app that has nothing to do with Google.

    To me, even if it seems like a benign change, I can see how it can be exploited by Google to push whatever agenda they want.

    If Google disappeared the day after this is rolled out, would I still be able to add a valid identifier to my apk without Google’s involvement?


  • You’re right, it is an inordinate amount of effort.

    So much effort, that I don’t believe doing it on the scale Android / Google would need to do is possible.

    We see Google, Apple failing at this insurmountable effort all the time. Even Linux has failed at it sometimes with supply chain attacks.

    And frankly I don’t feel that Google can do better than what they’ve done already in terms of sideloading. Right now of you don’t want to go through the app store, you have to ignore two separate warnings when you side load a malicious app. At that point it’s negligence.

    Because of that I don’t feel that adding this restriction to sideloading will help the situation. I believe it’s a cop out, if anything they should direct the effort to the Play Store more. There is plenty of actually harmful malware on the Play Store that we can see in the news is a much larger impact than sideloading applications.

    That’s probably why no one is empathizing with what you’re asking for, there is too much showing this change is in bad faith.

    We did have that impossible to screw up device in feature phones. But we traded that for pocket computers that enable us to install, and build apps.

    As for Linux, I completely agree with you. It still needs to improve user friendliness. It’s improved exponentially lately, and could be argued to be better than Windows, but it’s still not as good as smartphone computers which are the epiphany of user friendliness (and ignoring the dark patterns being added).



  • bitwolf@sh.itjust.workstoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldLanguage
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    It’s an option you have. Personally having to do the same thing for my family, I configure an idiot-proof setup and I don’t get random calls from my parents / grandparents.

    Blocking sideloading won’t help you here either though. You can just leave your mom using Google play store which vets the applications on the store.

    You can lock down a device security-wise without locking down a device freedom-wise.

    That said, I don’t think there ever will be a foolproof device, that’s not realistic.

    If you want to guarantee someone won’t fuck up their device that’s what Administration is for. That’s what child controls and safety features are for.

    Its not that I “don’t get it” its that I’ve been there and done that. And I use the tools given to me to make my life better. Those tools are for managing what my normie grandparents can and can’t do, because in reality, they just want to face-time their grandchildren, check emails, and print photos. But they’re also targets for scammers.