You might sideload an Android app, or manually install its APK package, if you’re using a custom version of Android that doesn’t include Google’s Play Store. Alternately, the app might be experimental, under development, or perhaps no longer maintained and offered by its developer. Until now, the existence of sideload-ready APKs on the web was something that seemed to be tolerated, if warned against, by Google.

This quiet standstill is being shaken up by a new feature in Google’s Play Integrity API. As reported by Android Authority, developer tools to push “remediation” dialogs during sideloading debuted at Google’s I/O conference in May, have begun showing up on users’ phones. Sideloaders of apps from the British shop Tesco, fandom app BeyBlade X, and ChatGPT have reported “Get this app from Play” prompts, which cannot be worked around. An Android gaming handheld user encountered a similarly worded prompt from Diablo Immortal on their device three months ago.

Google’s Play Integrity API is how apps have previously blocked access when loaded onto phones that are in some way modified from a stock OS with all Google Play integrations intact. Recently, a popular two-factor authentication app blocked access on rooted phones, including the security-minded GrapheneOS. Apps can call the Play Integrity API and get back an “integrity verdict,” relaying if the phone has a “trustworthy” software environment, has Google Play Protect enabled, and passes other software checks.

Graphene has questioned the veracity of Google’s Integrity API and SafetyNet Attestation systems, recommending instead standard Android hardware attestation. Rahman notes that apps do not have to take an all-or-nothing approach to integrity checking. Rather than block installation entirely, apps could call on the API only during sensitive actions, issuing a warning there. But not having a Play Store connection can also deprive developers of metrics, allow for installation on incompatible devices (and resulting bad reviews), and, of course, open the door to paid app piracy.

  • bad_alloc@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    2 months ago

    Just the term “side loading” instantly frames installing software on a device you own as something shady.

    • SlothMama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes, that’s the implication, and it’s certainly intentional for you to think of it like that.

      • doctortran@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The fact that an entire generation thinks the only proper way to install software is through an app store is absolutely terrible. Talk about a boon for the gatekeepers, Apple and Google did a bang up job training them to trust no one else.

        • quant@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          Schools and universities in principle should be the place where they’re introduced to what really means to own a computer. The trend however seems to give out everyone a locked down e-waste with proprietary restrictions all over the place.

        • ceiphas@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          As a long time linux user i find it normal to only install apps through a package manager (essentially the same) but you have a defined API for package sources and can add sources as you like. that would be the best solution. manually installing apps IS risky, and opens the door for malware and incompatible packages, but if you have a trustworthy package source that your packa manager can varify its packages against it gets way better.

          • xavier666@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            A package manager and app-store, which looks very similar from the outside, operates very differently with respect to security and privacy.

        • SlothMama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Microsoft saw Google and Apple do this with phones, and Steam do this with games, and that’s why they made the Windows store a thing starting with 8.

          They wanted to go the same direction.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ve had people clueless about tech tell me that:

      using Linux and not buying Windows I rob MS’s developers,

      not doing things the way big corporations want I deprive them of profits and thus rob their workers,

      using your own device the way you want it is a crime if you have to bypass what the vendor does,

      GPL and BSD licenses are not real sovereign citizen stuff, and if I’m not paying someone for software, I’m robbing the working class,

      repairing things yourself in your house is robbing people working in those trades,

      reading things in the Web is robbing university professors and book store workers and publishers,

      having to learn a particular technology while doing my task at work means I’m a fraud and rob my employer or our clients, because apparently I have to keep all the today’s tech in my head before needing any of it,

      if I don’t know some single thing another person knows, they are obviously better qualified than me (say, that other person can write Windows device drivers, while the job is about systems integration),

      and I don’t remember more stupid shit from those people and I don’t want to, but generally being not a dumb ape in today’s world is considered suspicious apparently.

      After that wonderful experience I might be silent about my views with people usually, but really I’ll never stop being anarchist (whatever kind of anarchism that is).

      • bad_alloc@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Out of curiosity, where and in which social groups did you hear this? I have never heard such thoughts here in Germany, and we tend to be idiots.

        Keep fighting the good fight, we have to keep the lights on in free soft- and hardware to provide a harbor for people who want to escape this shit.

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Angle sphere got a special relationship with the “poors” theybare dirty, stupid and they deserve to get fucked.

          Hearing this shit being said in earnest with that class bravado is so fucking cringe

          Usually biggest bootlicker is himself 3 pay checks from being homeless too lol

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            “This shit” was said in the context of a society exactly opposite to anglosphere, where being “poor” is an indulgence for violating every moral rule, every promise, every obligation and every law.

            More than that, it was said about the exact people who are, relatively speaking, not poor, rather almost privileged, but are hateful and envious of everyone actually doing useful work, and consider corruption good because in their opinion a bureaucracy worker stealing something entrusted to them is “a respected in the society person collecting rent from their position” or something like that.

            The profession of a schoolteacher in Russia pays shit, which is why 3 kinds of people want that - those who are too dumb for other work, those who are idealistic, and those who want to feel that they are important and powerful (power over children) even more than to be paid well.

            There are more people of the 2nd kind than you think, but those were of the 3rd undoubtedly. 1st kind is almost extinct - it’s not hard to find a job that pays better, if you don’t want power over children.

            I think it’s clear how the 3rd kind intersects with sympathies to sociopathic behavior, and sympathies for corruption and organized crime.

            EDIT: Oh, I just realized you thought they were bootlickers and hateful of poor people in this memory of mine. No, they considered that BS to be good for poor people. Basically hateful of capitalism most when it’s many small businesses honestly competing, but thinking oligopoly and state capitalism would be better. They considered me to be on the side of some “rich” people who hurt the poor. While big company owners and such were not, because they are apparently doing lots of charity etc and are respected people. So the “rich” they’d hate would be the “middle class”, not the “boss class”.

      • quant@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I bet they’ll say staying healthy without getting sick equals robbing from hospitals and pharmaceutical companies.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Their views were in general along the lines that there are poor people and there are rich people. Poor people owe nobody nothing (including respect to property rights, personal space, privacy and so on), and are owed everything. Rich people vice versa, it’s them paying with rights for their asocial riches.

          Now who’s poor is not absolute, it’s who owns less than deserved, and what’s deserved is big for their friends and similar-minded people. And who’s rich is the same, but owning more than deserved, and if they don’t like you, you deserve less.

          It’s the kind of people who love Stalin.

    • hogmomma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      …as I upvote you from my Pixel. ☹️ I give the sad face because Google isn’t who they once were and I’m just going to have to deal with that.

      • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        Never ask a company to pick between the right thing and profit. It was all a matter of time till Google needed to stop growing and start producing profit for investors.

        To make it worse the Pixel 9 starts at $800 just like iPhone. So if you’re buying Android you don’t really save money over an iPhone like you used to.

        • BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 months ago

          Never ask a company to pick between the right thing and profit.

          It’s fundamentally impossible for a publicly traded company not to choose profit over ‘The Right Thing’, fullstop. Shareholders feel that have a fundamental right to growth, and if Google’s CEO were to choose ‘The Right Thing’ over profit, the shareholders can oust them in favor of a CEO willing to choose profits.

          Enshittification is where every public company ends up, because the line MUST go up, no other alternative is acceptable.

    • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Google and apple you can let us worry about our security ourselves, thank you, though I’m sure you have our best interests in mind and only that

  • FireWire400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 months ago

    They’re still pissed that people won’t put up with their shitty YouTube app and use Revanced instead, eh?

    • ngwoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s not on Google Play so it doesn’t affect it. I honestly don’t know what the point of this is.

      • FireWire400@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Oh I see, so it only affects modded apks… They probably want to crack down on all those slightly-shady “spotify premium free”-apks.

        • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          No, it only affects vanilla apks where the dev implemented the check. For some reason the dev might forbid to run the app to users that side loaded the app instead of getting it from play store

          Patched/modded apks are unaffected because the check is patched out

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          That seems likely. The question comes down to where the line should be drawn. Allow the apps the be installed and then when the data is eventually reported/found by the app owners to have them file law suits against those who are “stealing” from them, or to not allow the cracked application to be loaded in the first place, which is easily disguised as a security protocol because if an app has code in it that is not originally supposed to be there, it is very possibly a form of malware, which then can hurt the users in the long run or short run if it actually acts malicious and starts doing shit like old school viruses did on PC.

          People want to say we own the device so we should be able to do whatever we want, but blatantly allowing people to install cracked apps with keyloggers onto their phones unintentionally will get them sued, and ultimately hurt how many people stay using their products.

          Imagine every user and password with the site listed was suddenly just accessible by everyone. It would be a hellscape of credit card companies trying to stop accounts because you order 18 pizzas off the dominos app in Georgia, and another 13 sandwiches in the burger king app at the same time in Jersey.

          We need to have the freedom to load apps we trust, but if you look at the standard user base, that’s who they have to make the phones for.

          Could do something like make the users agree to terms by taking the phone into developer mode that makes them non responsible somehow? Might not hold up in court when they get sued though. “All the photos I took on my phone got shared online”

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            People want to say we own the device so we should be able to do whatever we want, but blatantly allowing people to install cracked apps with keyloggers onto their phones unintentionally will get them sued, and ultimately hurt how many people stay using their products.

            Imagine every user and password with the site listed was suddenly just accessible by everyone. It would be a hellscape of credit card companies trying to stop accounts because you order 18 pizzas off the dominos app in Georgia, and another 13 sandwiches in the burger king app at the same time in Jersey.

            We need to have the freedom to load apps we trust, but if you look at the standard user base, that’s who they have to make the phones for.

            It has been 16 years since Android came on the scene. Why do you think that these things are going to become such a big issue now in 2024 and beyond?

          • TFO Winder@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think things are fine the way they are, we don’t need to interfere, unless for profits ofcourse.

  • Riley@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    2 months ago

    If the Play Store becomes required like that then Android’s already-shaky status as an open source base platform is going to go out the window. I’m glad there are non-Google distros of Android but there really needs to be more of a push to make a completely FOSS phone platform.

    • IllNess@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      There are Linux phones available. I,m going to guess popularity of those devices to increase soon.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That was the hope with Android, too.

        The problem is that as the OS is “free” that means it costs less functionally for the device manufacturer to get an OS on the device, so now they can pour more money into bloatware.

        Android was supposed to stop bloatware but all it did was enable it.

        Even without a forced “store” Linux is prey to the same issue of piecemeal support from various vendors all with in-house solutions that all stink.

        • doctortran@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          At this point, even that would be preferable.

          Your right, any open platform will be bastardized eventually, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t still a need for “resets”.

          There is no perfect platform for escaping it, because the market forces will always adapt and assimilate. The only true escape is to keep moving.

          That’s why it’s important for users to be hermit crabs, and move to the next thing, no matter how janky, because they will at least be able to influence it positively and have a relatively open platform for a number of years. Then the cycle repeats.

          If propping up Linux phones will get us the open platform we need, even if only temporarily, we should do it.

          The issue I think is that the current trends in all consumer software are increasingly user hostile, and the major platforms are creating ecosystems to support this. It’s become the norm now to be able to directly control the usage of the software on consumer devices. Apple has normalized this, Google and Microsoft followed.

          At what point will developers refuse to even create software for a system that doesn’t allow them that control?

          Look at how many developers out there absolutely jerk themselves raw at the idea they should be able to compel users to update to continue using their software. Look at how many believe the modern security culture fallacy that handcuffing users and throwing away the key is the only way to protect them.

          It’s a development culture issue. Respecting user control of their own device is no longer in vogue.

      • MrLLM@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I,m going to guess popularity of those devices to increase soon.

        I don’t want to be pessimistic about it, however I think it’s gonna be like Windows: enshittification will happen, but inconvenience is “too small” for people that they’ll rather check for a workaround than leave the platform.

        My guess is that we need something more appealing like the Steam Deck to make people take the step.

        • IllNess@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          My guess is that we need something more appealing like the Steam Deck to make people take the step.

          Hear me out! The Steam Phone®!

          • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Steam’s UI is tolerable, but inconsistent. In a SteamDeck, OK, but in a phone? Idk.

            I get that this isn’t meant that seriously.

        • vividspecter@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’d be happy with 2010 era desktop Linux level of support. It doesn’t need to get everybody to switch, just needs to be good enough for my needs.

      • XTL@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        There aren’t, really. There are a few antiques and half baked things.

        A big problem is that these days, unless you’re the size of Apple or Samsung, it’s impossible to get a reasonable hardware soc and modem other than one which only runs a soon obsolete blob laden android which is going to be EOL before you’ve even finished your design.

        The hardware is not there. The firmware/hw data/platform isn’t there even to begin OS work with. And there’s a global shipping, regulation and mobile operator hell waiting on the other side. And a product lifecycle that’s only a few years long.

        Yes, I’ve worked for phone manufacturers.

      • Vik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        As much as I want that to be the case, I don’t think full mobile gnu+Linux is really ready to use daily?

        I haven’t exactly been keeping up with things, mind you

        • klymilark@scribe.disroot.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 days ago

          I used it as my daily phone for months, and… well, I’m willing to deal with the problems. Without pretty careful battery management it’s not feasible, and it’s hard to manage your battery given the glitches. I often found my phone dead after a couple hours because it woke the screen immediately after I locked it because… reasons, and then kept it awake until the battery died. The biggest issue aside stuff like that (small issues that cause big problems), the biggest issue was I couldn’t get a map app working. There are some distros with working maps, none for my phone. Also call quality was horrendous. Like. I’m known for being able to tolerate bad quality, but this was, at times, about as bad as I remember my firefly phone being when I was 12, and I could not feasibly understand people at times with that thing.

          But the only reason I stopped using it was because the wifi isn’t working on it. Once I get that back up and running I’ll likely switch back to it. As bad as it can be at times, I still feel more comfortable having that as my primary phone than my Android.

        • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I sub to a few mobile Linux feeds and I want but don’t at all think mobile Linux is ready, even for tech devotees. Too battery hungry, not enough ease of use, missing functions, etc. And that’s not including lack of apps.

          Sailfish gets closest so far I think. But yes, not ready. Ubuntu touch last time I tried is fine but still a bit out of sorts.

      • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sadly the only people who would switch over to an actual Linux phone would be the people like the stereotypical Linux using Lemmy user. The average android user would just continue on like nothing happened because they’re not tech literate enough to know what’s going on or why they should care.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Linux isn’t even popular on desktop. No way a mobile version becomes popular without some massive shifts in Linux ideology and culture.

      • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        But part of the appeal of Linux is the fact that you can repurpose existing computers running other OSes to run Linux instead. This is a great way to lower the barrier to entry for Linux, because it’s easy to test it on a Live USB or a dual boot. It’s much harder to do this on phones because they have locked bootloaders.

        Another problem is that phones are not productivity devices - they’re consumption devices. Maybe this is just my personal bias, but I don’t think people will be as passionate about liberating their phones because they’re inherently less useful than computers. Convenient, yes, but useful? Not as much.

        That said, I would love to be proven wrong. I would definitely consider a Linux phone if they become more popular/useful, but I can’t really justify spending hundreds of euros/dollars on something for which I don’t see any particular use.

    • whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      The more I think about it, this may finally convince me to…shudders…switch to an iPhone. I’ve always stayed on Android because despite the recent Google bullshit, it still for the most part lets me do whatever. Side-loading apks is a huge part of that.

      If it’s turning into a shittier iOS clone, what’s the point?

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Don’t do IOS, it’s such a pain. It took us 2 days to figure out how to play an audio book file that I was able to download an F-droid app for and play in like 3 minutes.

        • whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Yup that sounds about right for iOS.

          Meant more that if Android ends up in the same boat (and by the looks of it, that’s exactly what Google and Samsung want), then iOS starts to look viable because the situation becomes: all the same bullshit but iOS is polished to a shine.

          Don’t plan on switching phones until my less than year old Note 9 kicks the bucket 😅

  • 5cr33ch3r@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The only reason I’m still sticking with Android is the ability to sideload

    I have no reason to use an android if this is the road Google wants to follow and expect my next phone to be an iPhone SE

    • sentientity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      I genuinely don’t even know where to buy an affordable device that is free from this kind of control. Some company always has outsized control (and in some cases arguably surveillance) over anything you can find on the market. It sucks so bad.

  • odelik@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This seems like a brilliant feature to roll out as they’re getting investigated by the DOJ for being a monopoly.

    • over_clox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      Also, didn’t the EU declare that Apple needs to allow other app stores on their devices?

      This seems like a bonehead move all around…

      • micka190@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        In this case, it seems like it’s the app makers themselves who are requiring the Play Store, though. Unless I’m misreading this, the developers are using the Integrity API to determine if the app was installed through “official channels” (in this case, the Play Store). Feels like people should be upset at the companies behind the apps, here.

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Okay. Then either use older backup versions of those apps before the requirement of the Play Store, or just quit using those apps and services and switch to less enshittified apps and services.

          Easier said than done these days, I know…

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, I know. The point is that people seeking privacy eventually won’t be able to use their banking apps and other online financial accounts unless they’re signed into Google Play to ‘authenticate’ the app.

          AKA force you into letting them steal more of your private info…

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I kinda understand it from the bank’s perspective… They need to reduce risk which is why a lot of banking apps check if the phone is rooted (if it’s rooted, how can you be sure that a malicious app with root access isn’t patching the app in memory and redirecting transfers to a different account?)

            Having said that, I really don’t think they need to restrict it such that the app can only be installed through the Play store, as long as the app is properly signed and uses certificate pinning to prevent MitM attacks.

            • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Fidelity apps doesn’t require any of this shite?

              But some shiti cash-app does?

              I wonder why 🤔

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      This has almost nothing to do with Google, it’s a feature that has to be enabled by the app developer. Meaning they want to exclude users getting the APK for their app from elsewhere.

      • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Kinda. It might be 3rd parties using it but it is 100% an API designed by Google to keep apps on Google Play.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          For all we know it could have been requested years ago by developers who have apps that get pirated but there was no mechanism in place to implement it at the time, and wasn’t a priority.

          Just because it’s beneficial to Google maintaining more direct control now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the origin.

          • Madis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Well, there is a separate system for pirating prevention, the Google Play license check. That has existed for years.

    • philodendron@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I unironically think so. It offloads the blame onto individual app developers. Google can turn around and say oh well it’s what the market wants

  • hypertown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 months ago

    Good that most apps I use now are open source but for those few that I still get from Aurora Store it might be a death sentence but perhaps this API could be spoofed?

  • heavy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    Androids best advantage used to be full control of the device… Those were the days. Then it started with saying they know better than you, then locking you out. Now I’m waiting on a new, better solution.

    Honestly it’s not like native Linux is too far fetched, but there would have to be a big open source common ground device collaboration.

    • EddoWagt@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Man I really hate how they stripped your permissions to access the internal and external storage, files can no longer access data from other apps even if you say allow all file access. Also if your phone supports SD cards, you might notice that you don’t have write access to it for some reason on later versions of android. (I really struggled with this with my Galaxy S9 on Lineage), had to use apps that remounted my SD card and what not

    • 0x0@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      So the EU’s been forcing Apple to allow sideloading and Google goes Nah, it’ll be fine?

      • Plopp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Google still allows sideloading, it’s the app developers that can prevent you from installing their app from other sources than Google Play. Sideloading an app works fine on Android if the app’s developer allows it. Apple didn’t allow that even if the app devs wanted it.

        • diffusive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          You are technically (and possibly legally) correct… But the spirit of the law is allowing customers to install what they want on their devices.

          This move defuses the responsibility to the developers but EU showed in the past that what they care is the spirit of the law and not the law itself…and they are happy to change the laws to make them more adherent to the spirit

          • Plopp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I would be really happy if you’re right, but I sadly think Google’s fine here. As far as I understand it, this particular regulation is to prevent a powerful actor (Google, Apple) to use their monopolistic powers to shut alternative stores down. It’s not about allowing customers to install whatever and however. Google doesn’t shut anyone down with this, so they should be fine. They give the option for app developers to choose if they want to run only on an attested platform - which they sell as a completely optional security feature that nobody has to use.

            My guess is if the EU is going to take this further it would have to be regarding a potential monopoly on the attested platforms on the device. Google only offering their own platform as trusted could potentially be seen as another monopolistic behavior. If we’re lucky.

            • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              The problem is though that the attested platform only accepts Google play as a store, for this to be truly fair you’d need a way to set a default store setting up and then the attestation API checks that store, but as things currently are it’s giving Google play store an unfair advantage.

  • T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    What is a “trustworthy software environment”?

    Does that mean that it will get mad and fail you for having Developer options enabled? Having F-Droid installed? Having it plugged into a computer?

    • whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      There’s a bank here that refuses to let you log into their app if you have developer options enabled. Their service was getting much better until that point, but I dropped them completely after that.

      I use developer options to get better screen density on my large ass screen, and to you know…develop apps 🤷‍♂️

      FUCK THESE ASSHOLES WHO THINK THEY CAN TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CAN NOT DO WITH MY PHONE

      • doctortran@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        People seriously need to start pushing back on the word “secure” being used as a blanket excuse for every restriction.

        It feels like every time that word is used, no one is willing to call out the fact that user freedom is equally as important and it’s a lazy, disrespectful developer who won’t take that into account by finding ways to maintain both.

    • FierySpectre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      According to the dumbfucks making the government application of Belgium (to read official communication) trustworthy means having developer mode disabled.

      • Ibuthyr@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I honestly think I’ll be getting a feature phone next time. I’ll keep an old smartphone just for Android Auto and that’s it.

        • nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Some time ago, I looked at kaios devices, and they looked really cool. I only didn’t get one because I need to use some banking apps only available for android

  • 0x0@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    So the EU’s been forcing Apple to allow sideloading and Google goes Nah, it’ll be fine?

    • flatlined@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      No but you see we at Google aren’t locking down sideloading. It’s the individual app developers. With the api we gave them for that express purpose. Totally not us locking stuff down though, so EU please ignore us trying to indirectly close doors in our walled garden?

    • bitfucker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ehh, this is basically just another form of DRM. No different than you having a Steam and GOG model. You can make your apps using DRM and enforce certain constraints

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        GOG model

        wut? The main selling point of GOG is that games purchased from them are DRM-free.

        • bitfucker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, that’s my point. Android “doesn’t” have to use Google Play Store, but it is convenient. Other store fronts exist like F-droid and many vendor specific one. Google just provide the DRM mechanism like steam does provide DRM via steamworks

      • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        DRM is to prevent piracy. This does not prevent piracy unless it only applies to apps that cost money.

        • TheChargedCreeper864@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          There already exists a “Google Play licence check” permission apps can use to verify whether or not the app has been bought on a Google account that’s present on the device.

          If people can crack the app to remove this (which is a thing for some of the popular apps), they’ll also figure out how to patch this out. This is strictly useful for free apps, and only serves to make it unviable to distribute verifiably clean apk’s outside of Google Play (so rip APKMirror)

          • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yup. This isn’t an anti-piracy thing, it’s a fuck-over-people-who-don’t-like-google thing.

        • bitfucker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          What I mean by that is, this is just an API/SDK for app developers to use. Google does not enforce the use of such things. Much like steam does not force the use of their drm for example (please note the difference between the marketplace and the drm). App developers can always choose how they make and distribute their app.

          • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            What legitimate reason would an app developer have for not wanting to let people install their app from sources other than the play store?

            • bitfucker@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Enforcing payment comes to mind without resorting to in-app purchase or any account creation. A lot of desktop software is a good example of those. Sure, you can still have cracks and whatnot, but then again, that’s not the point. Might as well ask what is the point of Denuvo. That is a whole other discussion.

              • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                That’s a very legitimate reason! I was talking about free apps, but I failed to mention that in my comment. My bad. Any legit reason for free apps?

                • bitfucker@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Nothing comes to mind. DRM literally means digital rights management and unless you wanted to be petty, like blocking a certain person from using your app, then DRM for something free is not something that I can think of a use case for.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Google is allowing the app developers to choose (for now?). With Apple, developers never had the option to allow other stores or sideloading.