zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
The worst part is the Orwellian opening sentence they start with in their blog post [0]:

> You shouldn’t have to choose between open and secure

2+2=5

Truly the end of an era. I've spent nearly two decades buying Android phones because of a single checkbox in settings that let me have the freedom I consider essential to any computing device that I own.

In a way, it's liberating, I've missed out on a lot from the Apple ecosystem because of that checkbox. Maybe finally I can let go of it now the choice is out of my hands.

[0] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-...

>>zmmmmm+9J
Very much my exact feelings. I had the first Android phone ever and even wrote my own APKs and enjoyed the freedom of the mobile platform that let me install my own software. But it's been close to 20 years and maybe it's time to check out the other side, as much as I despise Apple's locked down ecosystem.

>>rpdill+vU
I'd sooner get a Chinese phone that isn't "Google-certified" than reward this behaviour by giving $1000+ to the DRM OGs at Cupertino. Neither Apple nor Google are protecting users against the alleged data-stealing evils of Tiktok, so how exactly are they providing any kind of "user safety" by throwing up fees and red tape for small independent developers?

>>rchaud+Fb1
I'm also completely open to this. Google just made being not Google-certified a feature.

>>rpdill+1h1
Is there a list or other easy way to find out which phones are not Google-certified going forward? Is it purely a country specific thing or are there (and will there continue to be) mainstream manufacturers with non-certified phones?

I'm also fine with sticking to older models. Never seen the point of having the latest and greatest (aka: pointless) feature anyway. Does certification only apply to new hardware or do manufacturers back-port it?