Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

267 comments

  • I strongly disagree. There is absolutely a use case for my mom not needing me to wipe her phone every time she tries to get Duolingo or whatever.

    There is no scenario where an entire segment of devices should be locked to two companies having full control of what software can run worldwide, though. That part demands regulatory intervention.

    • One person's inability to use a common device is not an excuse to make it worse for everyone else.

      My parents are pretty incompetent when it comes to tech, but it wasn't difficult for them to understand not to install random shit and call if in doubt.

      • It's not one person, it's the vast majority of the userbase.

        Which, to be clear, is again not a reason to have a duopoly decide what software can be made or executed in the first place. It's fine to have Google decide what the Play store will carry, and it's even fine for Android devices to require a manual bypass to run unsigned software. It's not fine for Apple and Google (and I guess Huawei by necessity) to have final arbitrary say on what software is acceptable on all handheld mobile devices.

        • That's the same argument people used to praise Microsoft for forcing mandatory updates.

          Every year they force untested updates breaking the OS or even bricking the hardware.
          And Windows is still vulnerable despite the updates.

          • This is weird in so many ways I have a hard time keeping track.

            I mean, no, it's not the same argument. One thing is about how when you have billions of handheld devices largely meant to function as out-of-the-box platforms for specific uses for non-tech savvy users it helps to have them locked out of the box to minimize software issues and maintenance. The other is about peace of mind and automated upkeep during downtime.

            But at the same time... yeah, automated updates (which is not the same as mandatory updates) are a good thing. Especially for mainstream home computers that don't have a sysadmin looking after them from a centralized location and have their upkeep down to whatever an individual user decides to do and when. There's a reason a number of Linux distros meant for home devices also install updates in the background. It's a good idea for gaming devices and home computers. The thing that used to piss people off about MS updates is that they used to interrupt people's work to make them happen, which was exceedingly stupid.

            None of which has anything to do with Windows or Microsoft pushing bad updates. Bad updates are bad and they aren't any better for not being automated. Nobody cares if you updated yourself or the OS did it for you. If the system pushes a bad patch that bricks your system that's really bad. That should never happen. For the record, it has happened to me way more often on Linux, but your mileage may vary.

            And nooone of that has anything to do with vulnerabilities persisting. All systems have vulnerabilities. It's about striking the right balance between how bad those are and how practical it is to close them up. You keep things as secure as you can while keeping them usable, based on what they are being used for.

            • What exactly are you trying to argue here?

              You say automated updates good, mandatory updates maybe not?
              But there's no difference on Windows, that's the point. You, as a user, get no choice.

              You will get broken updates and unwanted features whenever they decide, because it's ultimately about the same thing with both MS and Android: taking away your control of your devices.

              • No, it's about implementation. Implementation is implementation. If you want to discuss software in terms of principle we're going to have a very short conversation. "You, as a user get no choice" because "they are taking away your control of your devices" is a meaningless statement.

                I am arguing that yeah, there are scenarios where limiting the ability to install or run unsigned software at the user level makes perfect sense. Honestly, it may make sense most of the time. The mirage that it does not comes from mostly spending time in home computers where the only user is also the person acting as an admin.

                Do I feel that most, if not all, devices should allow full access to a consenting user that understands they are very likely about to nuke their thing? Yeah, sure! It's basic right to repair. But pretending that automating maintenance tasks or adding access restrictions is a fundamental, ideological problem is just... not how this works.

                I think the change Google has announced is unacceptable. Just not for the reasons you're describing and certainly not in the way you're describing them. The difference is very important, because the last thing we need is a roaming mob of online dilettantes arguing that any restriction to access is a betrayal of fundamental freedoms.

                Which, frankly, is how we ended up with the dumb notion that there's no reason why you wouldn't want your home computer updating itself every time you reboot it. Which in turn has nothing to do with the ability to not do that if the OS is running on something that is NOT a home computer where somebody needs to have manual control over what changes and when.

    • You're right that there's value in having a software repository with "vetted" apps in it. And at the same time, there's a difference between "here's stuff we've done some kind of due diligence on" and "you aren't allowed to install anything we haven't okayed." That's what Apple and now Google are doing.

      (I also think there's value in having a word like "sideload" to describe the action of installing software not in a repository. It's just that it's tied up now in this paternal attitude from the big companies)

      • Yep. No disagreement from me on any of that.

        At most I'd argue that I don't mind that Apple does that as long as someone else does not. If Apple wants to have a closed system that's all good, but from the perspective of regulation and anti-trust you can't have EVERY platform be closed. You need at least one viable open competitor to prevent the owners of the hardware from owning all the software by definition. It's just like I don't have a problem with Nintendo needing to certify all the games on the Switch as long as there is a Steam Deck, or Sony certifying PS5 games as long as you can run games on a PC.

        But if all the software on the planet had to be on either the PS5 store or the Nintendo eShop I would absolutely have a problem with those being locked down. That's what this shift means for the mobile market.

    • That just sounds like the system needs a separate "Admin" mode to do things like that. Your mom can take the risk of messing with that herself (which can be very educational!), or leave that for you or someone else to handle. But that would let her make a more informed choice, even without technical ability.

      • Sure. I don't disagree with that. In fact, that's how it currently works on Android, more or less. It's actually looser now than it has been in the past.

        But "informed choice without technical ability" is not a thing. You can't be informed if you don't understand what you're doing. People online that more or less understand computers but don't necessarily understand how other people interact with computers tend to miss how this works. My mom doesn't choose to take risks or not, she won't read what's on the screen and if she reads it she won't understand it, and if she understands it she won't trust it, because she doesn't have the knowledge to distinguish a genuine message from the OS trying to ask for confirmation from a janky physhing request.

        My mom thinks Whatsapp messages can hack her bank account and freaks out every time her phone asks her to reboot for an update. She doesn't have the time or interest to get to a place where she can change that, and more to the point she shouldn't have to. It's prefectly fine to buy a device that will only let you do the things you want to do and won't let you do the rest.

        As you say, that device just needs some process by which someone who cares and knows how to do more stuff can reclaim full access.

    • Yeah this is where I'm at too, there is no reason these device makers should be locking us out of doing what we want with our phones. Their app store can exist along side other install options and compete on usability instead of monopoly.

      • Yep. I don't need Google to let me install apks freely and I don't need them to host everything on the Play store with zero supervision.

        But I do need F-Droid to keep working and to be able to install software that Google has zero visibility on, or a way to unlock my device to be able to sideload stuff. There is zero reasonable argument to say that Google is the only valid arbiter of signed software on the planet.

    • I argue that would be even more of a use case for the device owner to have such control.

      Then you'd have rights to control which software your mom can install on the phone.

      • Why, in the love of all free tech support would I ever want to do that?

        I swear, people just don't grasp how normies use computers. I don't want my normie relatives to have me micromanage their devices, I want their devices to be foolproof and do the five things they need to do.

        That's not what I want for every device, though, so there needs to be an alternative for people who post on federated social media and performatively use open source software. If there are only two providers in a segment and both lock down all sideloading that's not acceptable, but the concept of locked down devices by itself is not.

        This is not such a challenging concept. I am convinced most people in this thread would get it just fine outside of the context of having a knee-jerk reaction to the last thing they read online.

        • 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.

          • No, trust me, it's that you don't get it.

            What you're describing is an inordinate amount of effort and you clearly don't realize just how much. There are billions of people with billions of devices. People who can "configure an idiot-proof setup" at all are outnumbered many thousands to one.

            There isn't a you to configure anything for most people with a mobile phone. That's not how that works. It either works out of the box and forever or it's broken and unusuable.

            And sure, locking it down is no guarantee. People can still mess up their Apple phones, and those do like a thing and a half. Less than that without Apple's strict supervision. But this is a matter of degrees. The difference between a few of those thousands of unsupervised normies making a mistake each year and 10% of them making a mistake each year is the difference between Android being a viable platform and it being a broken mess nobody uses.

            I feel like I'm weirdly relitigating every other conversation I have with people about Linux over here. It's kind of exhausting.

            And to reiterate, that doesn't make Google insisting on having the ID of the author of every piece of software allowed to run on Android acceptable. It's just the difference between a reasonable objection and... not that.

            • maybe technology is not for everyone. but if grandpa wants to video chat with his kids, maybe it's the responsibility of the kids to help him. set up child limits or deal with the occasional problems. if grandpa cannot determine if an app is safe, they will install plenty of unsafe apps from the play store too, as google play's vetting is not nearly as good as some like to argue, so it's better for them if they just can't do so by themselves.

              • Nnnno.

                Grandpa is not a child. Grandpa is an adult. With, you know, income and independence and a full brain. Grandpa is well within his rights to own appliances that do things grandpa doesn't fully understands but that are useful to Grandpa.

                There is value for Grandpa (and for your jock brother that doesn't understand computers, this isn't an age problem) to have access to applications where he pays some company to do a thing for them. Those companies can take some of the complexity out of their hands, and Grandpa should be protected from abusive practices. It's not on Grandpa to do research on technology just to make a phone call now any more than it was for 1960s grandpas.

                • Nnnno.

                  Yyyyes.

                  Grandpa is not a child. Grandpa is an adult.

                  of course. that's out of question. However the tools provided by parental controls is what can solve this problem effectively. It's specifically for the case when the user cannot use the device responsibly for one reason or another. you set parental controls up, and now they can't break their phone.

                  what is the reason you think the parental controls function is not appropriate for grandpa? does it block him from doing something he should be able to do freely?

                  Grandpa is well within his rights to own appliances that do things grandpa doesn't fully understands but that are useful to Grandpa.

                  I totally agree! And with that, he is well within his rights to break his phone accidentally. the question is not that. the question is whether you want to help him avoid that. with parental controls you can allow him to do everything he needs to do.

                  There is value for Grandpa (and for your jock brother that doesn't understand computers, this isn't an age problem) to have access to applications where he pays some company to do a thing for them. Those companies can take some of the complexity out of their hands, and Grandpa should be protected from abusive practices.

                  Yes. That works if grandpa is willing to ask professionals before (or after) doing something stupid. If that applies, you don't set up parental controls for him, but allow him to do whatever.

                  If he is not willing to do that, he needs to be barred from breaking his phone. That's why you support google's plan, because they implement that, right?
                  But the problem is that they implement it ineffectively because they can still install plenty of hot garbage from the play store, and it'll make every other user's lives harder who know at least somewhat what they are doing, plus of those who are willing to give help to relatives any day. Because they either won't be able to install apps that they trust, outside of the play store, or it will come with huge consequences like making google play integrity checks fail, or these apps being restricted in what can they do.

                  that is why you don't implement such insanity on all phones worldwide, but only individually for those people that need this kindof stronger guidance.

                  It's not on Grandpa to do research on technology just to make a phone call now any more than it was for 1960s grandpas.

                  who needs to do research on that? you gave him the phone, it's your job to show him how to place a call. but this point is not even relevant because google's planned limitations wouldn't do anything so that your grandpa can place a call if he doesn't know how to do that.

                  • Hell no, I do not want to help Grandpa avoid anything. I don't want to be part of Grandpa's owning appliances at all in the first place. I have way better things to do with the little time we get to share together in this world.

                    And again, this hypothetical old person is not a child. I don't "allow" anything in this scenario. And even if I did, and even if I had the time or interest to run IT interference for somebody else, this solution does not scale. For every tech savvy person there are thousands of people who have never read a warning pop-up in full.

                    Your perception of where the onus is, how much understanding of how computers work or the usefulness of foolproof computing devices is way out of whack. And I get it, it's easy to lose perspective on this. Average familiarity and all that. But you're setting up a scenario that works just for you and not for everybody else.

                    So no, you are wrong, for a whole range of devices, restrictions should be the default. Absolutely. No question. This isn't even up for debate.

                    That's, in fact, not what is being debated, seeing how Google aren't changing install restrictions at all. The changes are more insidious and extremely bad for entirely different reasons. It is frustrating that this conversation is both being had on the wrong terms for what Google is actually doing AND showing how much even casual dwellers in tech circles misunderstand how UX needs to work to be serviceable at scale.

                    • Hell no, I do not want to help Grandpa avoid anything.

                      then why do you support this thing at all?

                      So no, you are wrong, for a whole range of devices, restrictions should be the default. Absolutely. No question. This isn't even up for debate.

                      restrictions are the default, today and the past few years. but google here wants to make it not a default, but the only option anyone can have.

                      seeing how Google aren't changing install restrictions at all.

                      y.. yes they do?? that's exactly what they are doing!

                      • then why do you support this thing at all?

                        I don't? I've said multiple times that I don't.

                        Can somebody tell me what's the minimum guaranteed attention span in people reading stuff online so I can crunch down any points that aren't a binary of "Down with this sort of thing/Up with this sort of thing" to not have people waste my time by knee-jerk assuming my stance without reading what I'm saying? Maybe we need AI summarization more than people say we do.

                        Also, this is me doing that for Google now. Best I can tell Google isn't stopping sideloading, they are stopping sideloading of unsigned apps in devices with Android security certifications.

                        The second caveat is irrelevant, in that uncertified devices presumably don't get Google services and the Play Store, so outside off-brand Android retro handhelds it doesn't matter. The first caveat is important, because on paper you can still install stuff from a website or F-Droid or the Samsung store or whatever but those developers will have to leave their info on record.

                        What you need to do

                        Complete these two steps:

                        Verify your identity: Provide information and documentation to confirm your identity as an individual or an organization. Register your package names: Prove ownership of your apps and register them with your verified identity.

                        This isn't the full app certification you need to publish on Play Store, as far as I can tell. In their words

                        Android developer verification is a new requirement designed to link real-world entities (individuals and organizations) with their Android applications.

                        This is very bad for a number of reasons. Just not the reasons people are reporting.

            • 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).

              • For the record, people are misunderstanding what Google is doing. They aren't enforcing full verification of every app, and presumably they're not preventing third party stores, since regulators have already forced their hand on that front.

                They are demanding to keep verifiable ID on the authors of every app for the app to be able to launch from any source. Their pitch is not to centralize, which they would like to do but aren't allowed to do, their pitch seems to be to give you a paper trail where you know who made the malware because Google literally has a copy of their ID on file. Microsoft already has this for Windows as a certification system, but crucially on Windows you get a (deliberately very scary) "this app is unsigned and is probably malware" pop up that you can still bypass. It take a lot of unintuitive clicking, but you can still run the software. Google is saying they won't have that workaround at all now on the subset of devices they flag as "Android certified".

                In practice this is fairly neutral in terms of security, but it focuses on enforcement and visibility. Besides the very real question of how to even implement this for distributed development or open source applications of the kind that doesn't bother submitting to Google Play, it may also have a heck of a chilling effect on a whole bunch of things you really don't want chilled in terms of privacy and anonimity for developers. It means if you want to control what software can be on ANY phone you need to get to basically three companies across the planet and that's enough. Likewise if you want to go after someone who made a piece of software for whatever reason.

                But that's not what the conversation we're having is about, partly because nobody seems to be looking past the headlines, partly because nobody wants to engage with the nuance of the situation and is looking at it from the myopic perspective of principled access at the cost of added complexity when that's not at all what this is about.

                • 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?

                  • I don't think it seems like a benign change at all, for those reasons.

                    Well, for most of them. It IS a concern that every single piece of bootable code on the platform is traceable to a specific person worldwide, for sure. The last one shouldn't be an issue. If Google disappeared you'd still be able to run unsigned code on Android, since on paper this will only apply to "Android certified" devices. Not being certified may remove Google services and the Play Store, but in your scenario those are gone anyway. And there isn't a ton of clarity about whether ID certification will be automatic. I presume it will be, but we won't know until we hear from devs in their early access program.

                    But apps being persecuted or censored by governments? Sure. That's a very real issue. And Google and Apple deciding what people can run in their devices single-handedly? That's entierly unacceptable.

267 comments