The detail that keeps getting lost in these threads: the "advanced flow" for power users is delivered through Google Play Services, not the Android OS. That's the whole game.
It means the safeguard is not part of AOSP. It ships as a closed component that Google can narrow, gate, or remove in any Play Services update, with no Android version bump, no OEM coordination, no user consent beyond the usual auto-update. "Open platform with an escape hatch" is load-bearing in the PR; "closed escape hatch bolted onto an open kernel" is what's actually shipping.
The second tell is timing. It's five months from enforcement and the flow has not appeared in any beta, dev preview, or canary build. We're being asked to treat a blog post and UI mockups as a functional guarantee. No other platform change of this scope lands without a shipping preview this late, and Google knows it.
The third piece most devs skim past: registration requires uploading evidence of your private signing key. Whatever you think of the verification program in principle, that specific requirement changes the threat model of every Android key in existence, including the ones protecting apps people already depend on.
"Sideloading still works" is only true in the narrow sense that some ceremony remains. The mechanism protecting that ceremony is owned by the party with the strongest incentive to eventually close it.
What follows is the "advanced flow." I feel like there should be a class action lawsuit in response to this as when I purchased my device I had an expectation that I could install apps without this insane limitation
Enable Developer Mode ↗ by tapping the software build number in About Phone seven times
In Settings > System, open Developer Options and scroll down to “Allow Unverified Packages.”
Flip the toggle and answer a scare screen confirming that you are not being coerced
Enter your device unlock pin/password
Restart your device
Wait 24 hours
Return to the unverified packages menu at the end of the security delay
Scroll past additional scare screen warnings and select either “Allow temporarily” (seven days) or “Allow indefinitely.”
On the next scare screen, confirm that you understand the risks.
You can now install unverified packages on the device by tapping the “Install anyway” option in the package manager.
> the "advanced flow" for power users is delivered through Google Play Services, not the Android OS. That's the whole game.
What is the source for this claim? I can believe it, but I haven't seen where the claim actually comes from, and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in Google's announcements.
If the "advanced flow" is delivered through play services, what does this mean for degoogled Android phones? Or are those not concerned with the new side loading limitations?
Put simply, If I were to install plain AOSP and F-Droid would I be able to continue installing apps normally?
>Combat astroturfing: when you encounter suspect posts on community forums and social media in support of the policy (“Well, actually…”), challenge them and do not be shy.
Someone contact Dang, because this is now allowed. I have been suspicious HN has actively supported astroturfers over the years for some sort of financial or mutually beneficial gain.
Anyway I basically changed to web apps. They are much easier to deal with and develop.
F-Droid really does have some great stuff, and you can know that the default posture is user respect rather than the opposite situation of the Play Store. I've started almost exclusively using F-Droid, excepting only for a few core apps that aren't available there (much to my disappointment).
If you haven't searched/browsed F-Droid in the last few years, do it. You'll likely be pleasantly surprised.
F-Droid is amazing. I basically wont install anything from the playstore unless its my bank or something.
Video games on F-Droid are how Android games should be. They have the spirt: No ads, no micro transactions, etc..
Kids educational games are the same. I have been using those games only for years and I've had 0 issues. Playstore games, you get an update and now your progress is frozen unless you pay.
Fully agree. Can you recommend some games, and kids educational games? I've tried a few and like them, but would love some recs.
The ones I like: Breakout 71, Chess, Word Maker, Word Tracer, Roboyard, FaFa Runner (short but briefly fun), Minesweeper (Privacy Friendly), Simon Tatham's Puzzles, SuperTuxKart, Tux Rider.
Well, actually I've long held the view that accusations of astroturfing, shilling, being a Chinese/Russian/CIA/MAGA/Soros/Martian bot, etc, are just people being too lazy to take on arguments they dislike with well-reasoned arguments of their own, but needing some sort of a quick "exit strategy" out of a conversation. Maybe this isn't true on Facebook, but here or on Reddit it is always far more likely that you're talking to an actual, possibly very wrong/bad, human being.
What is perfectly reasonable and rational is to only respond to clearly written arguments with some evidence of thought and time invested in them, and to consider others to be too low-effort or spammy to invest time in responding to. But guess what? Real humans spam for free, they're mostly not paid to do so by the PRC or George Soros.
Hypothetically, if Pixel phones became the go-to phone on Android, would G be less or more likely to keep it open? I have a bad feeling that the former is more accurate. The fragmentation somewhat forces the openness, or at least a baseline of openness. If pixels went to 98% market share, a rug pull seems easy and desirable for the management classes.
I'll admit that my cynicism is in no small part to having seen Android team members at G carrying around iPhones. It kills me to think that the bad parts of Apple are so interwoven into Android through cultural assimilation.
> It kills me to think that the bad parts of Apple are so interwoven into Android through cultural assimilation.
It’s more like Android is worse so they don’t want to use it. Dogfooding is good, of course, but if they don’t force them to do it, they will naturally choose the best phone. Which is not an Android.
The sad thing is, I started with Android believing it more than Apple's ecosystem, and after my first Android phone, I quickly jumped ship to iPhone.
My parents use Android devices and I manage them. With every iteration, Apple went to the way of PalmOS' refined flows as much as possible, and Android became what Windows CE aspired to be. A complex multi-layer wafer you can't understand which layer comes from where, and it's all different and non-standard between vendors.
Not the least, Android is mobile land of mini tools you have to install to be able to have a power-user friendly platform. Reminds me my old Windows days where I had to install utilities half day to be able to make the installation usable the way I want.
As I mentioned previously, the writing is on the wall. It is a matter of time.
We definitely need a true alternative on the market, preferably open, to balance things out and to free everyone from the duopoly. The political pressure that is needed is not to “keep” Android open, but to ensure that governments and institutions don't double down on the existing duopoly. Ensure that interoperability standards are in place, and don't lock people into the existing big tech platforms/solutions.
At this point, I'm just going to run a desktop OS on all of my future phones.
I've given up on cell phone software, but I wish cell phone hardware were better. I'm okay with a processor that isn't the latest and greatest, as long as it isn't in so-old-it-draws-watts-at-idle PinePhone territory, but fast processors seems to be all that phone manufacturers care about. They cut corners everywhere else, precluding the headphone ports, expandable storage, replaceable batteries, infrared transmitters, and physical buttons that made older phones much more useful, and they not only make the screens skinnier, but they literally cut off the corners. I want a nice uninterrupted at least 9:16 aspect ratio, if not higher.
I've had to deal with google's review process for docs add-ons and play store apps. It was a demotivating experience, disrespectful, inhumane and unfair. The idea that this will be the only way to be allowed to create things for android is so depressing. Putting hundreds of hours of effort into an app to hear back a vague "does not comply with some rule" is such a let down. This has been my main motivation to degoogle.
This initiative is well-appreciated, but - are we not barking up the wrong tree? Should the effort really be focused on pressuring Alphabet to modify an ecosystem that they already partially closed, and that they already have overall control over - rather than promoting a properly free alternative? I mean, non-Android Linux phones are already a thing, albeit clunky and not very popular. Would it not make sense to get some non-US entities (NGOs, phone manufacturers/vendors, municipalities or even states or multi-state entities) to form a consortium and invest enough in finishing up the engineering work necessary to make that a viable alternative? Without any single party controlling it?
Which of these political entities is in a better situation because of an open phone rather than partnering with Apple and Google? Anyone with the funding to make a Linux phone happen loses money and/or power making it happen. And users do not care, less than 2% of users will ever leave iOS or Android for Linux unless it's a substantially easier and more accessible experience for them, and we all know that will never happen.
Yeah, this. The vocabulary ratchet is underrated as a policy tool. "Install" became "sideload." "Sideload" became "install from unknown sources." "Unknown sources" is becoming "unverified packages." Each rename shifts the Overton window a little further from "this is the normal way to put software on a computer you own" toward "this is a suspicious deviation Google has graciously decided to tolerate for now."
By the time the technical mechanism lands, the framing has been prepared for a decade. The 24-hour cooldown, the seven taps, the three scare screens all _feel_ proportional to the danger the language has been implying. That's not an accident, that's the policy working as designed.
On the other side of the coin, those of us doing tech support for unsavvy family members do not want them installing software from any source but some vetted app store. Making it a bit harder is a real boon for those of us that still carry the mental scars of so many Bonzi Buddy removals.
I've been following "hackery" spaces like the console homebrew and Android custom ROM scenes for almost 2 decades now.
There has long been a culture of deliberately making the installation of certain types of free and libre software needlessly complex and using deviancy-coded language simply because it makes the in-group feel cool and elite.
This whole idea of "sideloading" and related terminology being Google FUD only came about in the past couple of years. For the decade before it was people on xda-developers deliberately throwing words like that around because they wanted to prove they were true 1337 h4xx0rz.
> it will no longer be possible to develop apps for the Android platform without first registering centrally with Google
This is inaccurate. The enforcement is through Google Mobile Services. The article fails to point out that some manufacturers build versions/forks of Android that do not include GMS, but these are still technically Android.
Somewhere in the range of 25%-30% of Android devices (1-1.3 billion) don't rely on Google services. Mostly Xiaomi, Oppo, and Vivo devices in China, but also in Russia, Indonesia, and Thailand. And all Huawei devices.
It feels like there is a wide open opportunity for some new OS's to enter the mainstream marketplace. I see nothing but dissatisfaction with the incumbents.
We still have problems with websites only working on Chrome, moving to a new - or grow an already existing one - open mobile ecosystem in 2026 and beyond it's going to be much more difficult than the Year of Desktop Linux, unfortunately :(
There's so much lock-in/captive-audience on these platforms I don't see this happening with mobile phones as they exist today. The only thing that will crack it is the "Next Big Thing"™, and who knows what/when that will be (AR glasses? Brain chips? Some AI wearable?)?
I want what you say to be true, but realistically it's not because of the "security" features available to app developers, and the fact that so many companies (even government!) have moved to mandatory apps. I don't know how we ever get past that with a new OS.
There are android distributions like Graphene OS and LineageOS that are completely open. The problem is application developers that specifically restrict their apps to only run on google/apple certified hard-/software
But Graphene and Lineage don't support on most phones. If phone makers were to be more forthcoming and cooperative, they could get one or both of those, or some mobile-phone-oriented Linux distro, to work and then Bob's our uncle.
In order to enter the mainstream market and challenge the consumer OS duopolies, a new OS needs at least two things:
1. Retail presence
2. A large advertising budget
This is why it's so difficult to challenge the existing duopolies on desktop and mobile. If a consumer can't walk into a retail store, see a device on the showroom floor with the new OS installed by default, and buy a device with the new OS installed by default, then the new OS has zero chance of becoming mainstream.
Among other reasons, this is why Linux has failed to go mainstream. Linux has no retail presence, and it's not advertising to consumers.
I suspect the app ecosystem was a problem with Windows Phone. iOS and Android already had a head start of a few years, with Windows Phone not appearing until late 2010, and "Windows" was a bit of a misnomer, because desktop Windows apps couldn't run on the phone, so the preexisting software ecosystem didn't help.
Android was never open. Its security model / the permission system is anticompetitive and the user is a third class citizen.
Google can do everything as they control the system - this gives full innovation capabilities. Then there are vendors which are restricted by Google via CDD (checked by CTS/VTS), they might add "privileged apps" but they can't touch what Google does on the system..
And only then there are regular developers/users, apps which they can install have very limited capabilities, they can't extend the system beyond a limited set of APIs that Google allows them to use.
This limits third party innovation already, but Google constantly makes it worse by restricting third party app capabilities even further under the guise of "security"..
It depends on what you mean by "Android." FOSS distributions such as Lineage or Graphene are unaffected by developer verification or other restrictions, and are truly open in the sense that they are controlled by the user.
> and are truly open in the sense that they are controlled by the user.
I don't see them altering the permission model, you probably meant the possibility of modifying the system by tools such as Magisk, which indeed make it possible to install software much less restricted..
.. but you can do that on any device with an unlockable bootloader. Graphene/Lineage only remove some Google spyware.
Try to install a Lineage phone app on GrapheneOS to understand what I mean :)
> Try to install a Lineage phone app on GrapheneOS to understand what I mean
I am not sure what you mean here. Any Android app should work on both Lineage and Graphene, it's the same base system. Graphene's debloating also goes far beyond removing some Google spyware. By default, there are no Google libraries, Play Store and Google apps.
You can't install the LineageOS phone app (with more modern looks) on GrapheneOS, because:
- the package name is already taken and to replace app with the same name the package needs to be signed with the same key which you don't have
- even if you modify package name, it's a system privileged app, privileged apps may only be installed by Google/vendors (unless you're recompiling the OS [64GiB RAM needed])
- if you strip all the privileges, functions like call recording won't work.
The detail that keeps getting lost in these threads: the "advanced flow" for power users is delivered through Google Play Services, not the Android OS. That's the whole game.
It means the safeguard is not part of AOSP. It ships as a closed component that Google can narrow, gate, or remove in any Play Services update, with no Android version bump, no OEM coordination, no user consent beyond the usual auto-update. "Open platform with an escape hatch" is load-bearing in the PR; "closed escape hatch bolted onto an open kernel" is what's actually shipping.
The second tell is timing. It's five months from enforcement and the flow has not appeared in any beta, dev preview, or canary build. We're being asked to treat a blog post and UI mockups as a functional guarantee. No other platform change of this scope lands without a shipping preview this late, and Google knows it.
The third piece most devs skim past: registration requires uploading evidence of your private signing key. Whatever you think of the verification program in principle, that specific requirement changes the threat model of every Android key in existence, including the ones protecting apps people already depend on.
"Sideloading still works" is only true in the narrow sense that some ceremony remains. The mechanism protecting that ceremony is owned by the party with the strongest incentive to eventually close it.
What follows is the "advanced flow." I feel like there should be a class action lawsuit in response to this as when I purchased my device I had an expectation that I could install apps without this insane limitation
Even shutting down HAL9000 was easier than this, and I'm half joking.
I named my phone HAL9000 and when I read this I immediately thought, "Well yeah I just turn it off"
> the "advanced flow" for power users is delivered through Google Play Services, not the Android OS. That's the whole game.
What is the source for this claim? I can believe it, but I haven't seen where the claim actually comes from, and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in Google's announcements.
If the "advanced flow" is delivered through play services, what does this mean for degoogled Android phones? Or are those not concerned with the new side loading limitations?
Put simply, If I were to install plain AOSP and F-Droid would I be able to continue installing apps normally?
Yes because enforcement of the signing is also done via Google play services.
We need a financial way to reward the resistance. Big corps do not care, as we saw them cave to Apple.
Anyway, I did my part, basically I only use FDroid. I filled this out: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfN3UQeNspQsZCO2ITk...
>Combat astroturfing: when you encounter suspect posts on community forums and social media in support of the policy (“Well, actually…”), challenge them and do not be shy.
Someone contact Dang, because this is now allowed. I have been suspicious HN has actively supported astroturfers over the years for some sort of financial or mutually beneficial gain.
Anyway I basically changed to web apps. They are much easier to deal with and develop.
F-Droid really does have some great stuff, and you can know that the default posture is user respect rather than the opposite situation of the Play Store. I've started almost exclusively using F-Droid, excepting only for a few core apps that aren't available there (much to my disappointment).
If you haven't searched/browsed F-Droid in the last few years, do it. You'll likely be pleasantly surprised.
F-Droid is amazing. I basically wont install anything from the playstore unless its my bank or something.
Video games on F-Droid are how Android games should be. They have the spirt: No ads, no micro transactions, etc..
Kids educational games are the same. I have been using those games only for years and I've had 0 issues. Playstore games, you get an update and now your progress is frozen unless you pay.
Guitar tuner? same
File explorer, image viewer, etc... Same
Everything: same
Fully agree. Can you recommend some games, and kids educational games? I've tried a few and like them, but would love some recs.
The ones I like: Breakout 71, Chess, Word Maker, Word Tracer, Roboyard, FaFa Runner (short but briefly fun), Minesweeper (Privacy Friendly), Simon Tatham's Puzzles, SuperTuxKart, Tux Rider.
Vector Pinball is a must have.
Well, actually I've long held the view that accusations of astroturfing, shilling, being a Chinese/Russian/CIA/MAGA/Soros/Martian bot, etc, are just people being too lazy to take on arguments they dislike with well-reasoned arguments of their own, but needing some sort of a quick "exit strategy" out of a conversation. Maybe this isn't true on Facebook, but here or on Reddit it is always far more likely that you're talking to an actual, possibly very wrong/bad, human being.
What is perfectly reasonable and rational is to only respond to clearly written arguments with some evidence of thought and time invested in them, and to consider others to be too low-effort or spammy to invest time in responding to. But guess what? Real humans spam for free, they're mostly not paid to do so by the PRC or George Soros.
> far more likely that you're talking to an actual, possibly very wrong/bad, human being.
Is it? I can't name another social media site that is simultaneously more ubiquitous than HN and bereft of any anti-spam measures.
> We need a financial way to reward the resistance
Here you go: https://eff.org, https://edri.org, https://noyb.eu
Those links would be more effective if you were to spend a couple of lines explaining what these organizations are and what they do...
These are NGOs fighting for our digital rights like privacy, security and device ownership. Wikipedia can explain much better than me.
Hypothetically, if Pixel phones became the go-to phone on Android, would G be less or more likely to keep it open? I have a bad feeling that the former is more accurate. The fragmentation somewhat forces the openness, or at least a baseline of openness. If pixels went to 98% market share, a rug pull seems easy and desirable for the management classes.
I'll admit that my cynicism is in no small part to having seen Android team members at G carrying around iPhones. It kills me to think that the bad parts of Apple are so interwoven into Android through cultural assimilation.
> It kills me to think that the bad parts of Apple are so interwoven into Android through cultural assimilation.
It’s more like Android is worse so they don’t want to use it. Dogfooding is good, of course, but if they don’t force them to do it, they will naturally choose the best phone. Which is not an Android.
The sad thing is, I started with Android believing it more than Apple's ecosystem, and after my first Android phone, I quickly jumped ship to iPhone.
My parents use Android devices and I manage them. With every iteration, Apple went to the way of PalmOS' refined flows as much as possible, and Android became what Windows CE aspired to be. A complex multi-layer wafer you can't understand which layer comes from where, and it's all different and non-standard between vendors.
Not the least, Android is mobile land of mini tools you have to install to be able to have a power-user friendly platform. Reminds me my old Windows days where I had to install utilities half day to be able to make the installation usable the way I want.
As I mentioned previously, the writing is on the wall. It is a matter of time.
We definitely need a true alternative on the market, preferably open, to balance things out and to free everyone from the duopoly. The political pressure that is needed is not to “keep” Android open, but to ensure that governments and institutions don't double down on the existing duopoly. Ensure that interoperability standards are in place, and don't lock people into the existing big tech platforms/solutions.
At this point, I'm just going to run a desktop OS on all of my future phones.
I've given up on cell phone software, but I wish cell phone hardware were better. I'm okay with a processor that isn't the latest and greatest, as long as it isn't in so-old-it-draws-watts-at-idle PinePhone territory, but fast processors seems to be all that phone manufacturers care about. They cut corners everywhere else, precluding the headphone ports, expandable storage, replaceable batteries, infrared transmitters, and physical buttons that made older phones much more useful, and they not only make the screens skinnier, but they literally cut off the corners. I want a nice uninterrupted at least 9:16 aspect ratio, if not higher.
I've had to deal with google's review process for docs add-ons and play store apps. It was a demotivating experience, disrespectful, inhumane and unfair. The idea that this will be the only way to be allowed to create things for android is so depressing. Putting hundreds of hours of effort into an app to hear back a vague "does not comply with some rule" is such a let down. This has been my main motivation to degoogle.
This initiative is well-appreciated, but - are we not barking up the wrong tree? Should the effort really be focused on pressuring Alphabet to modify an ecosystem that they already partially closed, and that they already have overall control over - rather than promoting a properly free alternative? I mean, non-Android Linux phones are already a thing, albeit clunky and not very popular. Would it not make sense to get some non-US entities (NGOs, phone manufacturers/vendors, municipalities or even states or multi-state entities) to form a consortium and invest enough in finishing up the engineering work necessary to make that a viable alternative? Without any single party controlling it?
Which of these political entities is in a better situation because of an open phone rather than partnering with Apple and Google? Anyone with the funding to make a Linux phone happen loses money and/or power making it happen. And users do not care, less than 2% of users will ever leave iOS or Android for Linux unless it's a substantially easier and more accessible experience for them, and we all know that will never happen.
Somewhere along the way, installing became side-loading and the rot started taking hold.
</boomer-rant>
Yeah, this. The vocabulary ratchet is underrated as a policy tool. "Install" became "sideload." "Sideload" became "install from unknown sources." "Unknown sources" is becoming "unverified packages." Each rename shifts the Overton window a little further from "this is the normal way to put software on a computer you own" toward "this is a suspicious deviation Google has graciously decided to tolerate for now."
By the time the technical mechanism lands, the framing has been prepared for a decade. The 24-hour cooldown, the seven taps, the three scare screens all _feel_ proportional to the danger the language has been implying. That's not an accident, that's the policy working as designed.
On the other side of the coin, those of us doing tech support for unsavvy family members do not want them installing software from any source but some vetted app store. Making it a bit harder is a real boon for those of us that still carry the mental scars of so many Bonzi Buddy removals.
Do you consider F-Droid a "vetted app store"?
Yes I do but I don't want to help my parents install it
I've been following "hackery" spaces like the console homebrew and Android custom ROM scenes for almost 2 decades now.
There has long been a culture of deliberately making the installation of certain types of free and libre software needlessly complex and using deviancy-coded language simply because it makes the in-group feel cool and elite.
This whole idea of "sideloading" and related terminology being Google FUD only came about in the past couple of years. For the decade before it was people on xda-developers deliberately throwing words like that around because they wanted to prove they were true 1337 h4xx0rz.
</millenial-rant>
Question. How will this play with distributions like graphene that allow for no Google play services?
There will be no restriction on Graphene.
They are not affected (except through second order effects, e.g. some FOSS app developers might give up on development)
> it will no longer be possible to develop apps for the Android platform without first registering centrally with Google
This is inaccurate. The enforcement is through Google Mobile Services. The article fails to point out that some manufacturers build versions/forks of Android that do not include GMS, but these are still technically Android.
A distinction without a difference.
If you want to develop an app for more than a miniscule fraction of Android devices, you need Google's blessing.
Not quite.
Somewhere in the range of 25%-30% of Android devices (1-1.3 billion) don't rely on Google services. Mostly Xiaomi, Oppo, and Vivo devices in China, but also in Russia, Indonesia, and Thailand. And all Huawei devices.
Sources: https://commandlinux.com/android/android-global-market-share..., https://support.google.com/android/thread/29434011/answering...
It feels like there is a wide open opportunity for some new OS's to enter the mainstream marketplace. I see nothing but dissatisfaction with the incumbents.
We still have problems with websites only working on Chrome, moving to a new - or grow an already existing one - open mobile ecosystem in 2026 and beyond it's going to be much more difficult than the Year of Desktop Linux, unfortunately :(
There's so much lock-in/captive-audience on these platforms I don't see this happening with mobile phones as they exist today. The only thing that will crack it is the "Next Big Thing"™, and who knows what/when that will be (AR glasses? Brain chips? Some AI wearable?)?
I want what you say to be true, but realistically it's not because of the "security" features available to app developers, and the fact that so many companies (even government!) have moved to mandatory apps. I don't know how we ever get past that with a new OS.
Will the new OSs be able overcome Apple and Google lobbies to restrict banking apps to "secure" (i.e. under their control) devices?
There are android distributions like Graphene OS and LineageOS that are completely open. The problem is application developers that specifically restrict their apps to only run on google/apple certified hard-/software
But Graphene and Lineage don't support on most phones. If phone makers were to be more forthcoming and cooperative, they could get one or both of those, or some mobile-phone-oriented Linux distro, to work and then Bob's our uncle.
In order to enter the mainstream market and challenge the consumer OS duopolies, a new OS needs at least two things:
1. Retail presence
2. A large advertising budget
This is why it's so difficult to challenge the existing duopolies on desktop and mobile. If a consumer can't walk into a retail store, see a device on the showroom floor with the new OS installed by default, and buy a device with the new OS installed by default, then the new OS has zero chance of becoming mainstream.
Among other reasons, this is why Linux has failed to go mainstream. Linux has no retail presence, and it's not advertising to consumers.
And to underscore the scale of that challenge, Microsoft couldn't make Windows Phone a significant competitor to Android & iOS.
I suspect the app ecosystem was a problem with Windows Phone. iOS and Android already had a head start of a few years, with Windows Phone not appearing until late 2010, and "Windows" was a bit of a misnomer, because desktop Windows apps couldn't run on the phone, so the preexisting software ecosystem didn't help.
We have other mobile OSes, even ones that support Android apps like Jolla and PostmarketOS. People don't use them.
Tell this to my banks (whose apps are the only way you can even pay at some businesses nowadays)
And I thought Google was always " do no evil ".
I'm using a 5 year old OnePlus Nord that needs to be replaced and all of a sudden I see I have no options but Samsung, Motorola and Google.
Not sure what I'll do. Does Asus still make a phone?
Previously:
Some more discussion in February
Open Letter to Google on Mandatory Developer Registration for App Distribution
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47139765
Android was never open. Its security model / the permission system is anticompetitive and the user is a third class citizen.
Google can do everything as they control the system - this gives full innovation capabilities. Then there are vendors which are restricted by Google via CDD (checked by CTS/VTS), they might add "privileged apps" but they can't touch what Google does on the system..
And only then there are regular developers/users, apps which they can install have very limited capabilities, they can't extend the system beyond a limited set of APIs that Google allows them to use.
This limits third party innovation already, but Google constantly makes it worse by restricting third party app capabilities even further under the guise of "security"..
It depends on what you mean by "Android." FOSS distributions such as Lineage or Graphene are unaffected by developer verification or other restrictions, and are truly open in the sense that they are controlled by the user.
> and are truly open in the sense that they are controlled by the user.
I don't see them altering the permission model, you probably meant the possibility of modifying the system by tools such as Magisk, which indeed make it possible to install software much less restricted..
.. but you can do that on any device with an unlockable bootloader. Graphene/Lineage only remove some Google spyware.
Try to install a Lineage phone app on GrapheneOS to understand what I mean :)
> Try to install a Lineage phone app on GrapheneOS to understand what I mean
I am not sure what you mean here. Any Android app should work on both Lineage and Graphene, it's the same base system. Graphene's debloating also goes far beyond removing some Google spyware. By default, there are no Google libraries, Play Store and Google apps.
You can't install the LineageOS phone app (with more modern looks) on GrapheneOS, because:
- the package name is already taken and to replace app with the same name the package needs to be signed with the same key which you don't have
- even if you modify package name, it's a system privileged app, privileged apps may only be installed by Google/vendors (unless you're recompiling the OS [64GiB RAM needed])
- if you strip all the privileges, functions like call recording won't work.
Same for contacts and so on..