Comment by itg 6 hours ago
Installing any app I want outside the Play Store was the primary reason I decided to go with Android, despite most of the people I know using iPhones. If I can't do this anymore, I may as well switch and be able to use iMessage and FaceTime with them.
I glanced at Ubuntu Touch, but its device compatibility looked severely lacking (https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/).... I have old Pixel phones I could potentially try it out on, but the last Pixel phone that is officially supported is the 3a. So that is a bummer.
>I may as well switch and be able to use iMessage and FaceTime with them
I, too, love vendor lockin.
Another road that leads to BBM it seems.
It’s utterly bizarre how BBM could have been the iMessage and WhatsApp and who knows what else. But rich out-of-touch people thinking exclusivity is a perk in a commodities market just shows how business savvy and wealth are in reality disconnected from eachother.
BBM could have been great lock in IF OS and Hardware experience was not so bad.
For vast majority, Android vs iPhone is not massively different so iMessage availability is a draw for some people.
BBM itself should not have been a lock-in. It would have taken incredibly little effort to open it as a desktop messenger that can seamlessly interact with people who have BBM numbers for example.
I doubt they learned their lessons. Apple walked all over them in so many ways and, if memory serves me right, they even mocked Steve Jobs over the iPhone.
Edit: just so I’m clear I’m discussing it from the perspective of early to mid 2000s. iPhone hadn’t yet come out, but iPods were popular. Trillian and Pidgin were dominating the online landscape of software that could support multiple chat protocols - seamless ICQ, AIM, IRC, Yahoo, MSN Messenger, all in one program. If there was a time for RIM to corner the market here it was right then and there because BBM was the real deal, being available on phones and they could have signed agreements with others to bring it to, for example, Nokia and Motorola and whoever else.
But no. They’d rather be arrogant and stupid.
I mean, we have mandatory Play Store services, so the experience on android is not significantly less locked-in.
Maybe it’s because I’m European but I’ve never understood what iMessage even is or what it offers above either sms or WhatsApp/signal. And I’ve used an iPhone for the past 15 years.
You can still install apps outside the play store, but the developer does need to verify their signing information. Effectively this means that any app you install must have a paper trail to the originating developer, even if its not on the app store. On one hand, I can see the need for this to track down virus creators, but on the other, it provides Google transparency and control over side loaded app. It IS a concerning move, but currently this is far from 'killing' non-appstore apps for most of the market.
So let's pick a random example app that might be popular on F-Droid today. Oh, I dunno...newpipe.
Given that Google both owns Android/Google Play Store and YouTube: what do you think they would do with the developer information of someone who makes an app that skirts their ad-model for YouTube?
Exactly. I don't think Google is doing this so that people don't install some random FOSS alternatives through F-Droid.
Things like Newpipe seems much more of a target, especially if you want to take legal action. More so than stopping users, this gives Google fat more leverage about what Apps can exist. If they ever want to stop Newpipe a serious lawsuit against whoever signed the APK seems like an effective way to shut down the whole project. Certainly more effective then a constant battle between constraining them and them finding ways to circumvent the constraints.
Google is following the same game plan we saw when they decided that the full version of uBlock Origin (the version that is still effective on YouTube) should no longer be allowed within their browser monopoly.
The fact that there was a temporary workaround didn't change the endgame.
It's just there to boil the frog more slowly and keep you from hopping out of the pot.
It's the same game plan Microsoft used to force users to use an online Microsoft account to log onto their local computer.
Temporary workarounds are not the same thing as publicly abandoning the policy.
From a quick glance at /r/GooglePlayDeveloper/ it looks like Google is just as interested in killing playstore apps! It seems that they only want to support the existing larger apps now. I think they are giving a clear message to developers that its not really worth developing for that platform anymore. I think we will all agree that the playstore needed a purge but they seem to be making it impossible for any new solo devs at this point.
I thought most devs didn’t want to develop on android because IOS devs made more income per user (0) and spent more on in app purchases. Android does well with ad supported apps. Paid apps have had issues with piracy also.
“In 2024, the App Store made $103.4 billion to Google Play’s $46.7 billion.”
Not related to this particular news item, but several high-profile App developers are either killing their apps on Android entirely (like iA Writer) or removing features due to Google tightening submission requirements and increasing costs for apps that integrate with their services.
not the change mentioned in the news link. I was referring to what people are discussing over on the reddit play store sub. Google are terminating dev accounts without giving any reasons or warnings. I'm sure most, if not all terminations have have some element of justification but ultimately it means that Google seem pretty happy to terminate any dev account without letting the developer know why. And to make things worse, that developer is forever banned from ever publishing any content on the playstore for life. They cannot make a new account. Their career in android app development can be destroyed in an instant. Most terminations seem to be handled by bots... and to rub salt in the wound, Google only responds to appeals... using more bots. That is according to what the community has been saying at least. I'm sure they know what they are doing and one thing we all know is that Google actually IS big enough not to fail. But it does seem like the right thing to at least make new developers more aware of the risks. And it is obviously a very stressful time for anyone who is actually making a living off an android app.
To wit, there is only one business playbook with two strategies: When you are weak, make friends. When you are strong, make war.
Android used to be weak against iPhone and needed to cooperate, so they allowed more apps in to grow the userbase. Now that they're big and strong, they don't need allies, so they start kicking out everyone who isn't making them money.
Every "enshittified" service does it - Imgur, Reddit, whatever. Everyone selling $10 bills for $9 does it. Microsoft did it. They took a step backwards by buying GitHub, when they realized they were totally blowing it on cloud. But now that they have users stuck on GitHub and VS Code, they're defecting again.
If it's for your own projects, for yourself only, ADB still works without this verification.
True, although using adb requires the use of the usb port, which for some of my projects is highly impractical.
Also, with this move, Google has made it very clear that they don't want people to have any real control over their machines -- so I'm not inclined to think that using adb to work around the problem will always be possible.
It's fine, though. My hobby projects will continue into the future, just probably without using Android.
I didn't think a usb port was required since the introduction of wifi adb?
https://www.androidpolice.com/use-wireless-adb-android-phone...
You can use GrapheneOS or LineageOS without the Google rootkit and continue installing any apps you want
If it gets that bad; Google can do what they already do with business listings - send a letter to the physical address matching the ID, containing a code, which then must be entered into the online portal.
Do that + identity check = bans for virus makers are not easily evaded, regardless of where they live.
That physical address will be useless, and probably easily worked around, in many if not most countries. Expecting Google to be able to use that address together with the law is a pretty US-centric expectation. I don't think most virus creators would be impacted, especially not the ones that are part of professional (criminal or government) organizations.
Will they send letters to sanctioned countries? What about a PO box, or a remailer service?
Yeah... no. This is normal with desktop computers. Let's stop handholding people. If I trust the source, I trust the domain... I want to be able to install app from its source.
Googles/Apples argument would have been much stronger if their stores managed to not allow scams/malware/bad apps to their store but this is not the case. They want to have the full control without having the full responsibility. It's just powergrab.
And you are completely ignoring viruses, ransomware, keyloggers, the 50 toolbars etc that has been the staple of Windows and before that DOS for over 40 years.
Scam apps are rife in the iOS App Store. But what they can’t do easily install viruses that affect anything out of its sandbox, keyloggers, etc
You are missing the part where the OS provider is the virus and keylogger. Unless of course you feel it reasonable that google and apple datamine everything you type via their software keyboard[0] or reading the contents of your notifications via play services[1].
0 - https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/16046-google-keyboard-w-net... 1 - https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/sandboxed-google-play-pr...
You mean if you run an OS made by a company whose whole profit model is based on tracking users so they can advertise to you is invading your privacy?
Sandboxing isn't feature dependent on Apple being a big curator is it? These are orthogonal but not the same issues. I've never said that PCs don't have viruses or that it isn't a problem, only that I should be able to install software from developer I trust if I want to.
I agree let's have sandboxed app instalations on platforms. Flatpak is already going this way. But it looks like big players Microsoft,Apple and Google are gatekeeping app sandboxing behind their stores instead of allowing people/devs to use sandboxing directly.
Yes because technically literate users shouldn’t have trusted mainstream companies to not install bundle ware back in the Day? They shouldn’t have trusted Zoom not to install a web server on Macs surreptitiously that caused a vulnerability? They shouldn’t have searched Google for printer drivers not knowing that it was a fake printer driver? They shouldn’t have trusted Facebook when they installed VPN software that tracked all of their traffic from any app?
Is that really your answer? To make the phone ecosystem as fraught as Windows PCs for the average user? How is they worked out for PC users since the 80s?
It's normal for Windows and *nix, not for modern macOS which has big limitations on unsigned apps requiring command line and control panel shenanigans.
> need for this to track down virus creators
I think they’re just going to track down a random person in a random country who put their name down in exchange for a modest sum of money. That’s if there’s even a real person at the other end. Do you really think that malware creators will stumble on this?
This has to be about controlling apps that are inconvenient to Google. Those that are used to bypass Google’s control and hits their ad revenue or data collection efforts.
Better hardware, yes.
But you'll be reminded quickly how comparatively shit Apple's software is.
Aka the litany of "Oh, yeah, everyone knows that's broken but just deals with it, because there's no way to fix issues on a closed platform other than {wait for Apple}."
Only phones sold by carriers were controlled by carriers. You could easily (in Europe at least) buy an unlocked phone and put in a SIM from any carrier of your choice. You could then easily install (i.e. "sideload") Java apps from anywhere you wanted, e.g. from a storage card or over Bluetooth, although some permissions were restricted unless you bought an expensive code-signing certificate.
Same, I'm tempted to call android just a shittier iPhone now
What part of cheaper, better, and open source is shittier exactly?
1. Not cheaper.
2. I think it's better, I like the UX but that's subjective.
3. Not open source. AOSP is open source. Android is not open source.
It's certainly cheaper when you compare phones with like specs.
> What part of cheaper
The iPhone 17 is the same price as the Pixel 10
> better
But the iPhone 17 has better hardware features, like UWB, better cameras, and a _far_ faster CPU.
> open source
Only if you install Graphene, and then never install anything that requires Google Play Services, which is basically every commercial app.
In terms of cameras, my pixel takes way better pictures than any iphone, and people I know with iphones (which is basically everyone) admit it.
> The iPhone 17 is the same price as the Pixel 10
I mean, flagship vs flagship idk if one has ever been significantly cheaper, but I've never been in the market for those either. It's very easy to get a higher priced, more interesting, highly specced Android phone. Both iPhones and flagship android phones are way too expensive for what they are capable of compared to any of their own prior generations of themselves, if you ignore tech specs and consider the tangible end-user functionality, but even still.
I've always bought the phone that suits me in the moment, have never budgeted higher than $600CAD, and have simply never been interested in iPhones beyond what used to be nice industrial design. For that, last time I got a brand new Pixel 7 on sale, Pixel 4a, Nexus 5 etc.. and they've all done what I needed and usually came close to matching the fancier versions in some ways in the same year's lineup.
Usually though I have breadth of options to pick from across a range of brands that I can choose between based on whatever the hell I prefer. iPhones are just iPhones, bigger or smaller, more expensive or cheaper, big camera plateau or small, and that's all fine too.
The sideloading aspect for me and a better sense of control is absolutely a component in that preference, and I'll have to consider that going forward, but I'd sooner just dial back my dependence on phones in general than switch to an iPhone.
GOS allows you to install and use apps from the Play Store and the vast majority of them works flawlessly.
> and a _far_ faster CPU.
No longer true with the newest chip that Mediatek cooked up, ARM licensed cores like C1 are catching up rapidly with Apple CPUs (or maybe Apple has hit the limit of their current design philosophy)
Cheaper for sure, better maybe but open source certainly not, AOSP doesn't run on a single device on earth, not even the emulators.
I'm out of the loop on this. What is Graphene doing?
https://grapheneos.org/features
>GrapheneOS is a private and secure mobile operating system with great functionality and usability. It starts from the strong baseline of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) and takes great care to avoid increasing attack surface or hurting the strong security model.
Over the last years Android has gotten increasingly worse, which is something you just have to expect from a Google product.
It is still unbelievable to me that Google is shipping a product which takes 10 seconds to show anything when I search through my phones settings. What are they doing?
>open source
Sure. If you buy the right phone you get some open source components. Of course half the Android companies are trying to funnel you into their proprietary ecosystem as well. The rest just wants you to use Google's proprietary ecosystem.
> takes 10 seconds to show anything when I search through my phones settings
Ah, I see ol' Google's been shamelessly copying Apple again.
Unrelated but related to embarrassingly-bad search: On my iPhone, I have a Hacker News reader app called Octal. Now when I search the phone itself for "octal" (like I do to launch most apps), sometimes the only result found is... the Octal entry under Settings (where iOS sticks the permission-granting interface for notifications, location, etc.) Can't find the app itself. Just the settings for it.
> Installing any app I want outside the Play Store was the primary reason I decided to go with Android
You still can do that with PWAs in Android. Let's see for how long.
> PWAs
And I wonder when can we stop lying to ourselves pretending "web"-apps are real (native) apps?
Do you have a single friend who isn't a programmer who has installed a PWA in the last two years?
You can still side-load signed apps. It's a similar limitation to macOS which won't let you run apps that Apple hasn't signed without command line or control panel shenanigans. Compared to iOS, Android still has the advantage of installing your own full browser (like Firefox) with full-fat ad blocking (uBlock Origin, not Lite). iOS is Safari-only right now though, in theory, some alternative engines may be available in Europe later.
If they need to be signed by Google, that's not side loading by definition; it's using an alternate Google channel.
You can install full uBlock Origin in the Orion browser, on iOS. It also has decent built-in ad blocking (though uBlock Origin is still better).
I had been thinking for a long time to switch to Android (GrapheneOS, probably) when my current iPhone 13 dies, but this whole thing with "sideloading" on Android is making me reconsider. If I can't have the freedom I want either way, might as well get longer support, polished animation and better default privacy (though I still need to opt-out of a bunch of stuff).
Check UbuntuTouch, it's really a nice third option. The OS is refreshing and the dev community active.
We do not have to choose the lesser of two evils this time.