There are a lot of qualifiers on this: Only in Singapore, only on apps requesting certain permissions frequently used by scams, and only when downloaded via certain paths.
I don’t see the full details but this implies that it’s still possible for advanced users to side load whatever they want. They don’t want to make it easy for the average user to start sideloading apps that access SMS permissions or accessibility controls.
If it takes a few extra steps for the advanced user to sideload these apps that’s not really a big infringement on freedom like this purism PR piece is trying to imply. Unfortunately sideloaded apps are a problematic scam avenue for low-tech users.
> The move, developed in partnership with Singapore’s Cyber Security Agency, is designed to prevent fraud and malware-enabled scams.
This explains why it’s only in Singapore for now.
Even if some technically inclined folk can install what they want, the masses will stay in the walled garden so that Google can get their cut and exert ideological control. Even now, both Google and Apple engage in practices across their product that are designed to scare people away from third party applications. From Google's terminology when describing Google in banners as "a more secure browser" etc, to Apple requiring a secret incantation in order to run unsigned apps.
All of this kind of mind control bullshit should be eradicated via regulation. Companies should not have a license to be deceptive towards their users.
I don't think the restrictions are doing much for victims. I assume Google was pressured into doing this by the authorities, or may be doing this to get in a good spot politically.
I'm sure making it harder to obtain software outside a first-party app store provides some protection to some users from scams, but I really don't want that to be the answer. I don't claim to have a good one myself.
> The move, developed in partnership with Singapore’s Cyber Security Agency, is designed to prevent fraud and malware-enabled scams.
Your comment seems to disregard it and instead lay this entirely at Google's feet as if they're seeking anti-competitive behavior - but if this was driven by a government, does Google really deserve all the blame?
(Note that I am explicitly not endorsing the move. I think sideloading should be left mostly untouched.)
I agree with you. However, the impact of scams should not be underestimated either.
Just because something is technically possible does not make it a solution
Because it's irrelevant.
> but if this was driven by a government, does Google really deserve all the blame?
Of course. If the government ordered Google to assist in a genocide against some demographic, and Google goes along with it, it doesn't matter if the government is also evil. Google is evil for playing ball.
And we don't have to speak in hypotheticals. Both Google and Amazon are actively engaging in tech-assisted genocide.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/23/what-is-project-nim...
I have boycotted Amazon for a while now and I'd boycott Google too if it wasn't so pervasive in my professional life.
Attacking the problem by reducing user freedoms and increasingly monopolistic control is not the answer, even though Google's PR department would tell you otherwise.
The walls should have open doors, though, versus prison bars. Physical switches on devices (much like older Chromebook devices had) used to opt out of the walled garden should be mandated by consumer protection regulations.
I don't think they cheeref at the arrival of the Microsoft Store on Windows, for example.
That's what's pushed for on the current smartphones, and they accept it; they easily don't see the problems, and it can seem complex for them to avoid it.
So the question on if this effectively reduce scams is the first question to answer.
I personally think there should be (I value individual rights/freedom over preventing someone from harming themselves), but I also see why we ended up here. When bad things happen, people demand action and government wants to be seen as doing something.
We had a big client from Singapore who only agreed to buy our SaaS subscription after we integrated SingPass (Singapore's national digital identity system) for user login.
When I read "Singapore" in the OP I immediately remembered about it.
The client is not with us anymore, but we still have this thing somewhere in the codebase :)
Only certain permissions actually matter. That's one of three.
But "only in singapore so far" is not reassuring.
And "downloaded via certain paths"? Browsers and file managers are the normal ways to put files onto a phone. That doesn't reassure me at all.
I don’t want to live in the same society as the person that wrote this asinine comment with this much confidence. We are just ideologically incompatible
Have the EU counterbalance this closing with extra fines for anticompetitive behavior.
The correct way to do it would be to whitelist other good stores, and allow developer mode installs with an extra process that says explicitly I am extra sure this may be danger, but no. This would reduce Google's income streams.
The way I see it, it must be attacked the way default Internet Explorer was attacked.
For example, it could be regulated that if the flip is switched (or a fuse is blown irreversibly) on a device, responsibility for the device and its software fall entirely onto the owner. So if they get phished on an unprotected device and lose their life savings, it's entirely on them. Manufacturers and service providers have no obligation to support them.
The actual way to stop the scammers would be to sanction their host countries into oblivion: India, Philippines and Myanmar are big in targetting English speaking countries, and Turkey when it comes to German speaking countries. Scammer Payback alone has made so many complaints with very little follow up from local authorities, partially due to open corruption. Either these countries clean up their act or they get dropped from SS7 (phone) and the Internet. But I see no way of this ever happening.
[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21692646/how-does-facebo...
I would prefer if Google moved in the direction of giving apps fake permissions. Otherwise the scammers will just move onto another layer.
More like fighting teen pregnancy by mandating chastity belts... With the same ultimate problems too: those most determined to overcome the block will make use of bolt cutters or their digital equivalent.
I think efuses being blown by device manufacturers should be illegal.
I think bootloaders that don't allow the device owner to run whatever software they want should be illegal.
I think device owners should be permitted to repair their devices without losing functionality because of DRM embedded in the parts themselves.
I think a physical switch, exercisable only with physical access, should be present on locked-down devices to allow the owner to exercise their ownership over the device. If that means that "attestation" functionality breaks and that causes some third-party software to "break" so-be it.
(I think the problem with banks, etc, requiring "trusted" devices is also in the realm of consumer protection, probably in banking regulation. I haven't thought about it deeply.)
Those "certain paths" include "file managers"; how exactly would you sideload an app without providing the file?