zlacker

[return to "Google will allow only apps from verified developers to be installed on Android"]
1. arielc+542[view] [source] 2025-08-26 11:11:45
>>kotaKa+(OP)
Meaning to use your device you need to have a contractual relationship with a foreign (unless you are in the US) third party that decides what you can or cannot do with it. Plus using GrapheneOS is less of an option every day, since banks and other "regulated" sectors use Google Play Protect and similar DRMs to prevent you from connecting from whatever device you want. Client-side "trust" means the provider owning the device, not the user.

Android shouldn't be considered Open Source anymore, since source code is published in batches and only part of the system is open, with more and more apps going behind the Google ecosystem itself.

Maybe it's time for a third large phone OS, whether it comes from China getting fed up with the US and Google's shenanigans (Huawei has HarmonyOS but it's not open) or some "GNU/Linux" touch version that has a serious ecosystem. Especially when more and more apps and services are "mobile-first" or "mobile-only" like banking.

◧◩
2. pimter+V42[view] [source] 2025-08-26 11:20:21
>>arielc+542
I think Play Integrity is the fundamental issue here, and needs to go. That's the crux of the issue.

Allowing apps to say "we only run on Google's officially certified unmodified Android devices" and tightly restricting which devices are certified is the part that makes changes like this deeply problematic. Without that, non-Google Android versions are on a fair playing field; if you don't like their rules, you can install Graphene or other alternatives with no downside. With Play Integrity & attestation though you're always living with the risk of being cut off from some essential app (like your bank) that suddenly becomes "Google-Android-Only".

If Play Integrity went away, I'd be much more OK with Google adding restrictions like this - opt in if you like, use alternatives if you don't, and let's see what the market actually wants.

◧◩◪
3. realus+n92[view] [source] 2025-08-26 11:57:07
>>pimter+V42
This is only allowed to exist because the justice system and politicians are mostly tech illiterate.

Play Integrity is not compliant with any antitrust legislation, that's painfully obvious. The sole and only purpose of this system is to remove non-Google Android forks.

◧◩◪◨
4. brooks+ph2[view] [source] 2025-08-26 12:46:35
>>realus+n92
As someone working on a product that relies on Play Integrity and PAT to give legit mobile users zero captchas while challenging non-attested clients, I promise you are quite wrong here.

The benefits may not be sufficient to offset the harms you see, but if you don’t understand how and why these capabilities are used by services, I’m also suspicious you understand the harms accurately.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. realus+Th2[view] [source] 2025-08-26 12:49:13
>>brooks+ph2
Using Play Integrity for captchas is completely useless, criminals are using unmodified devices farms on racks anyways. Why would they need to modify their device?

Betting on Play Integrity to solve that is betting that devices will become more expensive in the future, that's quite obvious that the opposite is happening, they are getting cheaper and cheaper.

[go to top]