Respectfully, I think this is the wrong fight. And I fear it may be counter-productive, because all the effort put into asking Google to make it a little less painful to install an unverified app is not put into the real fight.
IMHO, it should be fine for Google or Apple to do whatever they want with their OS. What should be forbidden is to prevent people from installing an alternative OS on their hardware. But this is not all Google's doing there: all the Android manufacturers are actively preventing users from doing it.
When I buy an Android phone, I should be able to unlock the bootloader, add custom signing keys, install whatever OS I choose, and relock the bootloader. Interestingly, currently this is possible on Google Pixels, but not on most other Android devices.
When I use an Android phone, a company building an app should not be allowed to ban my OS "because it is not the Google OS". That is, using Play Integrity or whatever they do to ban alternative OSes should be forbidden. But again, this is not entirely Google's fault: the companies choose to add those checks in their ** app. And it is a bigger problem there, because while I can install an alternative OS on my Android device (e.g. GrapheneOS or LineageOS), I can NOT install an alternative client for e.g. my bank.
Back to side-loading: really it's mostly a problem for F-Droid on Stock Android, as far as I can see. And really, people who care about using F-Droid would probably be happy to use an alternative OS, if it was reasonably possible. We should fight for that.
ARM doesn't have any initialization/boot standard enforced on phone manufacturers so everyone is doing their own and never upstreams anything. It's a general ARM problem. PC with some lucky coincidence avoided that fate and we got used to it. RISC-V is in even worse shape than ARM as the fragmentation is even at the CPU instruction level. Both ARM and RISC-V have some discussions/proposed standards but nothing enforced anywhere.
If I may ask: is that a reason to prevent me from unlocking, adding custom keys and relocking the bootloader? It feels like you are talking about the implementation details below that. I don't really mind if it is different, I just want a common API, and it seems like whatever is done on the Pixel phones is totally fine. Why not make that mandatory for all manufacturers?
This should apply not only to phones. Every device with CPU and programmable memory should allow user to reprogram it. However, the user may waive this right for purpose of theft protection.
Agreed. And it does not mean that they should open source everything.
If I buy a connected fridge, they should give me a technical way to flash my own OS on it. Maybe I will lose most functionality by doing that, and maybe it will be a lot of work for me to get the OS working properly with the fridge. But it should be possible.
There are no mainstream OS alternatives. You're standing up to fight for 0.000001% of users and leaving everyone else stuck.
Fighting to win our phones back is fighting for the 99.99999%.
These devices are the most important part of everyone's digital world. Certainly the non-technical folks. You can't even order food at restaurants anymore without them. You can't date or socialize as a young person without one. It's becoming your state-issued ID. It's everything.
And two companies control everything you do.
They need to be stripped of all of their power to constrain these devices. Once you buy the device, it's yours.
These belong to society. Not the two giant monopolies that won a battle decades ago and forever get to sit atop their pile of gold like dragons. They should never be able to dictate the world downstream, and certainly not with the authority they have today.
Web installs. No scare walls. No hidden menu settings. First class distribution and support for web sans app store. No ability for these companies to strong arm.
They're taxing all of human innovation. Any time you want to reach someone, they stand in the way. They ask for 30%, they mandate the tech, the updates, they divorce you from choosing payments, login, your ability to talk to your customer.
As a consumer this means new tech companies can't start and grow big and fight the incumbents. The incumbents can move anywhere and dump on it. They can put a ceiling on outside innovation and copy or acquire it on the cheap.
All of tech is becoming a lock and shackle authoritarian regime with permanently fixed leaders, ossified tech, and banana republic fleecing of everything new. This is bad for consumers and freedom and innovation.
Respectfully - no. You're wrong. These companies need to be slapped hard by every regulatory body in the world.
They shouldn't have freedom. They should have responsibility they're fearful of. And they should have competition.
Competition is good. Capitalism should be hard. Apple and Google should be sweating, not coasting. This should be a responsibility, not a fish in barrel situation.
I feel like you missed my point. I am fighting for the 100% (and you are not, as you say). We should all own our devices, and owning a device means that we can install whatever OS we want on it. The beauty of it being that if you can install whatever OS you want on it, then the problem raised by the article does not exist anymore.
Today, if you own a Pixel, you can just install GrapheneOS and it will mostly work. Why just "mostly"? Not because of GrapheneOS. Because of some goddamn companies (usually banks) who want to lock you into the Google flavour of Android.
If you own another device, maybe you could install LineageOS or /e/OS, but chances are that you won't be able to relock the bootloader, so you will lose the security model of Android. For many people, this should mean that it's not a reasonable option. But that's not LineageOS' or /e/OS' fault: it's the manufacturer's fault: they are locking you into the Google flavour of Android (which many times also means their own flavour based on top of the Google flavour).
And on many other devices, you just cannot install an alternative OS at all, so you are stuck with the Stock OS.
You are essentially saying "it is fine that 99.99999% of the people are locked into their manufacturer flavour of Android, as long as we can keep using F-Droid" (because really, the changed discussed here mostly affects F-Droid, and it would be debatable whether or not F-Droid's design is fine or not).
I disagree, it is not fine. When we buy an Android device, we should be able to install an alternative OS, period. All of us.
well if in the 10year future new OS are as easy installed as apps now, maybe. But that future is far off.
Getting my grandma to install NewPipe is easier if Fdroid works on her phone, than to get her to install the new totallyFLOSS-OS
Have you tried installing GrapheneOS? I don't think it's harder than properly installing F-Droid and then installing NewPipe with it.
> the new totallyFLOSS-OS
Nobody said it has to be new and totally FLOSS. Just build on top of AOSP, which is open source and very mature, and that everybody knows (because it is Android :-) ).
> When we buy an Android device, we should be able to install an alternative OS
That's not freedom for the world.
That's freedom for you and ten people.
The bigger thing to fight for is removing Apple and Android's power over what happens post-sale. And that can include your demand, but it also includes a whole hell of a lot more about vanilla/stock Android/iOS.
Only because you don't know what those alternatives are.
I can take a random person in the street, show them my /e/OS or GrapheneOS phone and ask them what it is running. They will 100% say Android.
I can ask them to use it for 10min (write messages, open the browser, swipe TikTok) and they will never realise that it is not running "the Android signed by Google".
It is so, so close to the Android signed by Google that it's not worth "improving" the Android signed by Google! If you want to remove the power of Google over Android, just use one of those alternatives and the problem is solved. The pain points with those alternatives are what we need to fight. And really it's just a few small things that need to be regulated.
This is an idealism vs realism fight. You're both right in that you're both fighting for the end user to have ultimate control of their device.
However, there's a major caveat here. Google's play protect prevents me from using some apps on my phone running graphene. My banking app is one of them. Yes I know there's technical workarounds. Yes I know they have a website (for now). But the point is, this is the direction stuff is moving. Fully signed devices from power-on through the entire stack and a flag that warns software if that breaks. Yes, it's a win for security. But I have zero control. Google has all the keys to all the doors and graphene can't do anything about it. Nor can I. And Google has very little incentive to change this.
I fear this is the direction things are moving to. Phones will be tied to our identity. Web will be depreciated as a security risk. Only one of the two options you two are fighting over fixes this: power must be taken from these mega corporations.
> Google's play protect prevents me from using some apps on my phone running graphene. My banking app is one of them.
Well, your bank is the one choosing to prevent your from running it on GrapheneOS. That's my whole point again! We need to regulate that: it should be forbidden to ban alternative OSes!
Now complaining about the fact that side-loading will require a ONE TIME, "annoying" procedure is not helping this AT ALL. It's just "oh no, I could do it with one click, and now I have to do it in 9 clicks, that's terrible, we need to bring it back to 2 clicks because anyway we won't win if we hope to bring it back to 1 click".
I'm exaggerating of course, it is a big problem for e.g. F-Droid (and maybe others?). But my point is that it's just cosmetic, it's not helping the cause. It's not moving us one inch closer to a better world. On the contrary: it's monopolising the attention of policymakers. They already don't understand much, and we flood them with complaints they don't understand (because really, 99.99% of the Android users don't give a shit about side loading, why would the policymakers care?).
The solution is simple: make it mandatory to allow alternative OSes (which is pretty much as simple as making it mandatory to unlock/relock the bootloader, and maybe remove a few other barriers that exist just for locking us in) and making it illegal to ban alternative OSes with Play Integrity (which is what banks are doing). That's all. No need to fight every decision Google makes and still lose every single time.
We need to get our act together and get the policymakers to do the right thing. But to be fair to the policymakers, technical people on the internet are asking for everything and its contrary.
I'd be happy with either approach, frankly. I just think yours is slightly less realistic.
> Well, your bank is the one choosing to prevent your from running it on GrapheneOS. That's my whole point again! We need to regulate that: it should be forbidden to ban alternative OSes!
The bank isn't banning graphene os. They're banning anything Google labels as untrusted. I think that's an important distinction. This is Google's doing. I don't have the ability to declare "this is my device and I trust it and everything on it" to the banks. And I can see Google's point in that it would be extremely difficult to do this in a way that couldn't be exploited maliciously. Are there ways for the .001 percent of people out there who understand this? Absolutely. But only if our overlords let us and even then we're back to the point that this is only for the people in the know.
Which is why I personally don't think enforcing alt OSes will help. We have it now; most people don't know and wouldn't care if they did. Play protect is the same. The amount of people this would impact is beyond minimal. However the problem isn't minimal; this is already a huge problem and it's getting bigger quickly. Giving people the keys won't fix it fast enough, or for enough people.
Tech already controls our life and that fact is only getting more worrisome. It's past time for the governments to treat this the same as electricity. Everything standardized, everything regulated, and I can plug whatever the hell I want into it. I don't want to just break free for myself. In order to really make change, my grandma needs to think of her phone like a power outlet.
> The bank isn't banning graphene os. They're banning anything Google labels as untrusted.
I don't agree here :-). AOSP provides an attestation mechanism that totally works with GrapheneOS [1]. Google provides Play Integrity on top of that, as an easy way to check that the phone is signed by Google. It doesn't say "it's unsafe if it is not signed by us", it just says "here is a way to verify that it is signed by us".
The bank chooses to check that it is signed by Google and to refuse everything that is not. The bank chooses that.
First, they don't need to check at all. Many banks don't, it seems like it's a new thing. I don't believe that there is any security concern there: it probably has to do with policy, or security theatre. It isn't serious security, because serious security would not ban GrapheneOS. I doubt it is to help Google, I think it's just incompetence (and a cheap way to do security theatre).
Most apps run on GrapheneOS, most apps don't use Play Integrity. Those who do choose to do it. And there are banks that choose to support the GrapheneOS attestation, though it's the exception.
I feel like this is semantics. I don't know all what they say, but I'd eat my breakfast cold if the word "safety" didn't come up in the PowerPoint deck. We may have to agree to disagree on this.
My point was that this is the direction the world is moving to. Maybe it's not total coverage yet, but every year more and more of our stuff only operates with verified trust through the entire process. Everything from video games to movies to programs. We're already sitting here complaining about Google enforcing developer verification, how long until Google turns on play integrity by default? And then how long until it's the only option? It'll come if something doesn't change.
And I still agree with the post way up above that these devices are too important now. I don't care about Google's interests here.
> My point was that this is the direction the world is moving to.
And I agree with that, but it feels to me like it reinforces my initial point: fighting the Google flavour of Android is a lost cause.
> We're already sitting here complaining about Google enforcing developer verification
Which isn't a problem on alternative Android OSes like GrapheneOS.
> how long until Google turns on play integrity by default
Agreed. The solution is to be able to use an alternative Android OS like GrapheneOS :-).
> It'll come if something doesn't change.
And what needs to change is that regulations need to make it illegal to actively choose to ban alternative Android OSes.
The thing with regulations is that you need to find something applicable. When people complain about centralised system and lobby for regulations that will help their federated system, without even debating about whether or not the federated system is "better", the fact is that it is not applicable. It is not reasonable to say "so now, if you write a messenger app, it has to use the Matrix protocol because Matrix convinced us of it". If I want to write a different protocol, I should be able to do it, right?
But what I am suggesting here is both reasonable and applicable: currently those banks have to add code to their app in order to ban alternative OSes. If a regulation makes it illegal, they just have to remove it, and banks who don't have it yet just don't add it. It's easy to verify: if my banking app doesn't boot on GrapheneOS, I can complain to the regulator, and the regulator can trivially verify it.
Same thing for allowing to unlock/relock the bootloader: super easy to verify, a regulation would work great.
Now back to the article: what are we asking? That the process of installing an unverified app manually is not made "so hard", with "hard" being some variant of "it's terrible if I have to wait 24h one time in order to enable this", for something that approximately nobody does. Look at all the effort that has been put against this change... and again they will lose. And if they managed (very unlikely) to get regulation for that, they would be screwed next week by the next change.
That's why I say it's the wrong fight: not only it's a lost cause, but it is strictly less useful than the simpler solution of defending alternative Android OSes with simple regulations.
The plan to rely on the presence of alternative OSes is only good so long as those OSes exist. They do today, but it is more of an exception rather than a rule. In a hypothetical scenario, where a signifcant portion of users switch to one of these alternative OSes, there will be an incentive to monetize.
So I'd agree there should be rules what OS should and shouldn't do. And yes, it shouldn't be a fight with an enterprise entity, which has little incentive to restrict itself. It should be a lawmaker level discussion, unfortunately they are pursuing other agendas over there.
> In a hypothetical scenario, where a signifcant portion of users switch to one of these alternative OSes, there will be an incentive to monetize.
Which is why it's better to choose an alternative that is open source, so that when they become evil, you can switch again. It's always been like that: we're fleeing from successful companies becoming evil. What has changed is that those companies have found a way to make it illegal for us to flee, and I suggest we fight against that.
"But this is not all Google's doing there: all the Android manufacturers are actively preventing users from doing it."
Google is (a) restricting "Android" functionality through trademark and software licenses with manufacturers and (b) paying the manufacturers, e.g., through placement agreements and revenue sharing agreements
Given Google's actions in this regard, why would a manufacturer want to allow hardware purchasers to remove Android and install an OS of their own choosing, e.g., one that does not enable Google data collection, surveillance and ad services and generates no revenue for the manufacturer
The idea of regulating manufacturers that partner with Google seems far-fetched, not serious. For example, I don't see HN comments suggesting Apple should be prohibited from interfering with buyers who want to remove iOS and install another OS in its place
Meanwhile the control, privacy, etc. problems with these corporate OS are avoidable right now by choosing different hardware, specifically hardware that allows installation of open source OS that a concerned buyer can edit, compile and install themselves
I feel like you haven't read enough HN reply but I've said the exact thing about Apple OS they can have it and have HW but they should be seperate companies and the OS regulated like the monopoly service it is.
OSs are few in number and are special pieces of software supported by extreme network effects and locking in effects. Its virtually impossible to abandon mainstream OSs even in the desktop world which is much more permissive their are basically 2 OSs. You can count Linux as a third but its not a serious market share competitor yet! EU and France might change that.
But essentially total OS control allows a type of anti competitive behavior that is unavoidable. You either need 10s of options which are different in the services which isn't viable because modern OSs are some of the most complex pieces of software in existence. Your only other option is to regulate them like the power company because its not practical to build your own grid to have fair pricing and access
"I feel like you haven't read enough HN reply but I've said the exact thing about Apple OS they can have it and have HW but they should seperate[sic] companies and the OS regulated like the monopoly service it is."
Was this under a different HN account
I went through all replies by xphos and found nothing that discussed removing IOs and running some other OS on an iPhone
What I want is for Apple to sell hardware that has no OS installed. This is actually how I prefer to buy computers today, with no OS. I just want the Apple hardware, not the Apple software
The AirPort Extreme was the closest I have seen to this wish for Apple hardware without Apple software coming true. It included Apple software, but it could be operated using a NetBSD 6.x kernel
Ironically, I think regulation is what keeps them in power. They are major companies that comply with government regulations. Why would the government regulate to allow people to have devices that forgo government regulations?
If you want a successful mainstream operating system. It needs to work within the rules of society. It needs to comply with regulations. It needs to cooperate with mobile device manufacturers and network operators.
These small grassroots operating systems fail because, to do all those things, you need to be pragmatic.
The next major operating system will be backed by a business or government.
> If you want a successful mainstream operating system. It needs to work within the rules of society. It needs to comply with regulations. It needs to cooperate with mobile device manufacturers and network operators.
Which can be done with a small team by building on top of AOSP, like GrapheneOS does. How is that not pragmatic?
I would group GrapheneOS with Android. If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android.
But considering it as a separate OS, I wouldn’t consider it mainstream. It’s not on any device by default. And it has an estimated 250k users out of ~3.9 billion Android users, or 0.0064%. It might seem mainstream for the tech community, but it goes to show how small the tech community is.
It might be mainstream once Motorola, a corporation, starts releasing phones preinstalled with it.
> If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android.
Agreed, that's exactly it! The pain points of GrapheneOS/LineageOS are due to the fact that device manufacturers don't allow proper support (typically the bootloader story) and that big companies like bank choose (more and more) to ban whatever is not signed by Google (through Play Integrity). I argue that those things should be regulated.
> And it has an estimated 250k users out of ~3.9 billion Android users
I think it's more than 250k, but let's go with that. There are Android manufacturers that are in the same order of magnitude. What would you say if your bank banned your Fairphone (that runs Stock Android signed by Google) just because it is a Fairphone, and "a few hundred thousands of users is marginal"? I think even the regulators would directly understand how that is a problem. Microsoft Office shouldn't be allowed to just ban Framework computers running Windows just because they don't think Framework is big enough, right?
It's not "Google vs alternative Androids": there are many Android flavours, from Samsung to Sony through Xiaomi and Fairphone. We don't tell Fairphone that they have to be mainstream before they get the right to sell Android phones.
The very reason alternative Androids are (slightly) harder to use is that they are not mainstream, so banks ban them for no reason because they can, and Google is happy to do nothing about it because those are competitors.
> What would you say if your bank banned your Fairphone (that runs Stock Android signed by Google) just because it is a Fairphone, and "a few hundred thousands of users is marginal"? I think even the regulators would directly understand how that is a problem.
We're talking about different operating systems on devices, not the same operating system on different devices. Also, it's not the same as modifying the stock OS that does work with a non-stock OS that doesn't.
The hardware analogy would be closer to having a computer, replacing the GPU, then getting angry that there isn't a driver for the GPU that supports that operating system.
> Microsoft Office shouldn't be allowed to just ban Framework computers running Windows just because they don't think Framework is big enough, right?
Apple doesn't allow their operating systems to run on non-Apple devices. Likewise, Microsoft does have the right to restrict what systems Windows can run on. Any software provider has the right to limit their software's usage.
Conversely, device manufacturers have the right to restrict what operating systems can run on them. E.g. the majority of devices other than desktops and laptops.
Whether or not you should be able to run any software on any hardware is another debate. Even if you support that stance, there is a hard limit to user freedom via government regulations on hardware/software such as any RF transmitting device and cryptographic devices.
---
Google Android and iOS are regulated by governments.
With the upcoming age verification requirements made by governments (let’s not debate that here), only the corporate entities that governments can regulate will be allowed.
We can regulate to allow alternative Android OSes, but the alternatives will be ones that follow government regulations.
> Also, it's not the same as modifying the stock OS that does work with a non-stock OS that doesn't.
Again, the non-stock OS works, except for the parts that cannot work because they are being actively blocked. It's not that they are not ready: they are ready, but the mainstream players are blocking them.
> The hardware analogy would be closer to having a computer, replacing the GPU, then getting angry that there isn't a driver for the GPU that supports that operating system.
I disagree. It would be like having a computer, replacing the GPU with another GPU that is 100% compatible, but that doesn't run because the OS checks it and says "it would work, but it is not a GPU I like, so I will block it".
> Conversely, device manufacturers have the right to restrict what operating systems can run on them. E.g. the majority of devices other than desktops and laptops.
My point is that they shouldn't. I am saying that it would be better for society if we regulated that.
> We can regulate to allow alternative Android OSes, but the alternatives will be ones that follow government regulations.
> My point is that they shouldn't. I am saying that it would be better for society if we regulated that.
Playing devil's advocate here. Why should software developers be allowed to restrict where/how their software is used, while hardware developers can't restrict where/how their hardware is used?
Yeah it's a good question, and in the end it's arbitrary. I would say:
1. Because e-waste.
2. Because if I buy shoes, I own the shoes. If I buy an electronic device, I own the electronic device. It should not be legal to add a mechanism in my shoes that allows the manufacturer to make them stop working as shoes whenever they want.
Hardware manufacturers don't open source their firmwares because they see it as a competitive advantage (why not, sometimes). But they should allow someone else to write their own firmware. That is, they should provide minimum support for that. Right now it's not that they don't provide minimum support: they actively work on making it technically impossible to do. And the law, through the DMCA and the likes, makes it illegal to reverse engineer.
Not sure what you are trying to say. My point is that technically, we have good alternatives. I am not talking Mobile Linux: we have Android alternatives that are indistinguishable from Stock Android to normal people... except for a few pain points.
We need to fight to address those pain points, in order to have good alternatives. What this article is trying to do is not trying to address those pain points at all, it's trying to change something in the Google flavour of Android. At the end of the day, it will still be the Google flavour of Android.
> why would a manufacturer
That's why I say we need to fight for regulating it. Technically, nothing prevents it. It's just that the manufacturers don't want or don't care. And it's not just manufacturers: banks that ban your OS if it's not "the Android signed by Google" are part of the problem as well, and we need to regulate that.
I agree with you, but even with the ability to install your own OS properly, you can't necessarily use some of the hardware.
As I recall from Ubuntu Touch, they had to build a system that was a thin wrapper around Android so that they had access to firmware blobs.
I guess that would still be ok as long as the hardware component manufacturers don't start to require authentication from the OS. That would be along the same lines as the fight you're describing.
I think that for the first step, we need to make sure that AOSP forks can work. And those can just copy the binary blobs.
Don't get me wrong: I like all alternatives. But the most realistic alternative to Stock Android is based on AOSP. In good approximation, today nobody would want anything else.
If we get there, then the next step is to get open source firmwares. But I don't know much about that and it feels like it is a much harder fight. Hardware manufacturers probably strongly believe that they will lose their competitive advantage if they open source their firmwares, and I don't know how true that is.
Sorry but what a ridiculous take. There are two phone options in the western world: iphone and android. 99.99% of the people aren't' going to even fathom they could install their own OS on a phone or whatever.
There is a clear MONOPOLY on phones and to even further take away the right to just install something on it is crazy. I already hate Apple for that, but there's no recourse in the monopolistic & capitalistic US and now it's going to be 100% gone.
"it should be fine for Google or Apple to do whatever they want with their OS"
I’d say that it’s more of a cartel. The mobile network operators, the mobile device manufacturers, the mobile OS developers. They all work together in their consortiums to make money together.
It’s a bit obvious when you look at the supply chain where “competitors” supply each other with parts.
RF hardware is heavily regulated by governments, so a truly open-for-consumer hardware solution won’t exist.
When you buy an Android phone, the Stock OS you get is AOSP (the open source Android base) + Google stuff + Manufacturer stuff.
Now it sounds like you don't know about it, but if you take only AOSP and run it on your phone, you will not immediately notice that it is not "a normal Android you expect".
There are alternatives based on AOSP, e.g. GrapheneOS, LineageOS, /e/OS. To 99.99% of the people, those would count as Android. The difference between e.g. a FairPhone Android and a Samsung Android is not smaller than the difference between FairPhone Android and /e/OS.
What I am saying is that we should fight for those alternatives to run properly. Right now you may have heard that "it is not a full replacement because some things don't work". First, few things "don't work" (fewer than you may expect). Second (and more importantly), those few things that "don't work" are not the responsibility of those alternative OSes. It's precisely because Google + Android manufacturers prevent them from working that they don't.
I don't think it is such a ridiculous take. Rather, I feel like you just have no idea about how it works, and therefore you cannot imagine how there are alternatives to the situation you know.
Someone here on HN used the term "cloud terminal" for modern electronic devices, and I think that is a very fitting name for phones and tablets. They are definitely not computers because they do not actually give the user access to general purpose computing in the sense that the users can control exactly what computations the device is going to execute. They are just terminals whose production costs we cover but which are actually owned by the cloud providers.
Also: The internet is slowly turning into a handful of clouds, and it is only a matter of time before you cannot meaningfully host anything by yourself outside of these clouds because your cloud terminal will refuse to talk to it.
IDK, not really a fan of redefining computer to make a rhetorical point.
It seems counter-productive to tell people the computing device they think as a computer isn’t really a computer. It’s like saying my car isn’t really a car because I can’t adjust spark timing. Someone could make that semantic argument but it’s hard to imagine anyone would care.
Adjusting the spark timing is more a right to repair issue. If you replace the screen of your phone with one of a working phone do you expect it to work or do you need the approval from a licensed apple technician?
A taxi is still a car but we use a different word to differentiate the mode of operation. The difference in language infers different usage of the same machine.
Therefore going by car is understood as something different then going by taxi. In relation to this issue, it's like you rented a car but you get a taxi instead (selected operator controls the vehicle instead of you). Most people would not be pleased.
The problem being that phone or tablet is understood to be similar to computer while really they are not. So perhaps a different term to highlight this difference is not strange or counter-productive. Do you call your "smart tv" a computer in daily conversation?
I don’t see the value in hypotheticals like that. If the claim is that a computer is not really a computer unless every user can do any low level operations they want, is it also true that a car is not really a car unless every user can do any low level operations they want?
Manufacturers are taking away right to repair too! I think you picked a bad example. Back in the 60s you absolutely could change every low level component on a car.
Sure. But a taxi is a car yet it doesn't quite take up the same mental spots. People will say they came by taxi instead of by car.
People won't say they don't see the value in selfdriving capabilities or repairability because they can just get a taxi.
Etc
Our argument shouldn't be about the device's capabilities, but about its ownership. And increasingly, as this enshittification progresses, the person buying the device is becoming less and less its owner.
Well it's still a vehicle but once something sufficiently deviates in form or function or the like it will no longer primarily be called that. People usually say they took a taxi for example rather saying they came by car even when every taxi is a car. Once that happens they start taking up different mental spots and comparisons between them start to make less and less sense. (saying you don't see the value of self driving capabilities because you can just get a taxi for example.)
This isn’t relevant. Taxis are still cars and that’s something the vast majority of people would agree with. The fact that they have a more specific name doesn’t change anything.
A Bungalow is still a house. A skyscraper is still a building. A panini is still a sandwich. A taxi is still a car.
> IDK, not really a fan of redefining computer to make a rhetorical point.
Yes! This reminds me of Stallman who is in my opinion a visionary decades ahead of his time, but in terms of marketing he did that a lot and it ended up just distracting from the conversation. All of a sudden instead of discussing the actual issue, we're disussing rhetoric.
How about instead: is an e-bike a bicycle? Is it a motorcycle?
The apparent user experience between a computer and a mobile are markedly different - especially if you were a Windows user circa 10 years ago. If you were a Windows user in the 90's to 00's, it's nearly unrecognizable in how much ownership you feel over your own device.
Is it still a "car" if it only takes you to the train station and forces you to use public transport? "shuttle" might be more appropriate? Is it still your car if it leaves during the day and carries other people?
The meaning of words drifts when the situation changes.
Point taken. But I think we can say that smartphones and tablets are definitely not "general-purpose computers" because they are not programmable, at least not freely so.
But they are programmable, very freely even. Whether you can start any desired program on the device is the crucial point. Having gates, doesn't influence what's inside the gates.
I'm reminded of Zed Shaw's argument about how python3 should not be considered Turing-complete if it can't run python2 code. It was a fun rhetorical exaggeration that I felt helped clarify that it isn't unable to run python2 code, but rather that the people in charge decided that it shouldn't.
> The shiniest and most popular apps are cloud terminals but the iPhone is actually a pretty darn powerful device.
They are powerful from a computational perspective, but the point was that it's a hassle to run a custom binary on them as compared to regular computers. You get a powerful device that is not flexible in this specific sense, so much of that power is not utilized
Plenty of useful apps != general purpose computing capabilities.
You are not allowed to run computations that have not been approved by Apple if you are using an iPhone. Yes, the hardware is powerful, but it is cryptographically locked down. It is physically local, but the control of the hardware is entirely non-local and 100% owned by Apple.
You can run arbitrary computations on iOS devices if they're written in JavaScript, WebAssembly, or Swift (via Playgrounds). All of these are Turing complete, and all three compile into machine code. What you don't have without an Apple developer account is direct machine code access.
Also note that apps like Pythonista allow you to write programs that call arbitrary Objective-C APIs without permission from Apple. This means that you have a Turing-complete language running unsigned code that can do anything a signed app can do. Your programs do, however, execute slowly.
unless you're using an API that requires an entitlement, you can still get an apple developer account and sign whatever code you want and run it on your devices.
Did you just move the goalposts from “you can’t run arbitrary code today” to “hypothetically, in the future, Apple could prevent running arbitrary code”?
As with Google accounts, it's not hypothetical, it's a risk. People do occasionally get locked out of being an Apple developer for reasons they cannot foresee.
I could have a stroke that leaves me unable to program. Does that mean I am not truly free to program today?
Those are risks, but they do not change the on-the-ground reality today, and the claim was that users, today, cannot use these device as general purpose computers.
We can use them today as general purpose computers, if we make a large effort to do so.
In my Linux and Mac, I dont think twice to quickly write a script to automate some pain-in-the-butt issues. But with my phone, it is pain-in-the-butt to write anything. It becomes not worth the effort.
Moreover, we can argue if technically it is a general purpose computer for whole day long. But that's not the point.
The point is that we are allowing gradually the big organizations to restrict general purpose computing, the internet and other previously free systems. It is happening slowly, where we can still give them the benefit of doubt. We are the frogs in the kettle where we are arguing that the temperature is just one degree more than earlier, so it is not actually boiling. We can keep on arguing about the temperature or step back and see the big picture where it is going.
No it's not. I need permission by a third-party to be able to program a device I supposedly own. I need to give them money, I need to give them my identity, and I need to tie my identity to any distribution of the software I make if other people are to be able to install it.
This is not a rhetorical sleight of hand, this is just saying that I am not truly in control of the device that I have bought.
The rhetorical sleight of hand is yours, by claiming that a device requiring pre-authorization (by virtue of needing a developer account) is an open computing platform.
> Someone here on HN used the term "cloud terminal" for modern electronic devices, and I think that is a very fitting name for phones and tablets.
Not really, at least not in the case of Android.
We have been able to install (and develop) software for these devices since day one. To me, that is pretty much a general purpose computer. The only real difference are peripherals, which is better suited for content consumption than creation. Even then, it is trivial to add a keyboard, mouse, or printer. Other forms of I/O are "walled off" behind permissions, but most of those have to do with privacy (very few computers have things like GPS, accelerometers, etc.). The big difference after that is the cellular modem, where security is a big concern. Yet that mostly affects phones.
I'm not sure I would even agree with it in the case of iOS. The distinguishing difference between iOS and Android is that the development and distribution of third-party software is restricted by the vendor. I don't think that makes it any less of a computer.
Contrast that to the typical ereader. Technically it is a general purpose computer, but most ereaders are developed to support a singular purpose. You aren't going to be installing third-party apps in the course of normal usage.
Well, they can do computing, but it's awkward and most people don't use them for that, it's true.
The question of ownership is interesting. If I buy a chair, it doesn't make a very good table, does that mean I don't own it? Most people don't know what general purpose computing is. To them a cloud terminal is a computer. So, to them, they do own their devices because that's all they are.
I feel like some of us think we got close, or anywhere near, what Stallman has been advocating for most of his life. But I'm afraid we didn't. We all chose convenience. We chose to believe that one man was enough to hold back the tide against enormously powerful corporations and governments. Some even turned their back on Stallman. And some even work for the enemy.
We haven't really lost anything here. It's just becoming more clear what we actually have.
We did not all choose convenience over freedom, but the majority did. Those of us who chose freedom were still able to participate in digital society, albeit with a bit of added inconvenience, but this is becoming increasingly difficult as cloud terminal use is becoming a prerequisite for doing banking, using public transport or even verifying your age on the internet.
The chair analogy is a bit weird, because I am actually free to buy a chair, disassemble it and somehow use it as a table if my needs for a table for some weird reason happens to coincide with the form factor of the chair. I don't think the analogy really works, but if a chair worked as a modern phone then it would be built with one-way screws and in general be built to lose structural integrity if you try to disassemble it.
A better analogy is roads. Anyone can put any car on the public roads (they may be breaking the law if the car is not legal). But we are moving towards a world where the roads will slash the tires of any car which isn't approved by Ford or Tesla. Ford and Tesla didn't build the roads, but they somehow took over the control of them.
Not really. My point is people don't even think they're buying a general purpose computer because they don't know what that is. They are buying a cloud terminal and it works as a cloud terminal. You might think of your smartphone as a computer, but you're wrong. So it's a chair and anyone can sit on it, it's just not a table. It never was.
Super predictable for HN to trot out the "tablets and phones aren't computers" line.
It's still wrong. Countless people use them for all their computing needs. Overwhelmingly, though, these people are not the sort to comment on HN. They are Regular People, not Professional Computer Touchers, and their needs are absolutely met.
> they do not actually give the user access to general purpose computing in the sense that the users can control exactly what computations the device is going to execute
What prevents the creation of an App that allows one to do exactly that?
You can in fact side load it. There are no restrictions on apps loaded via adb. The 24H restriction period on side loading only applies to apps retrieved by other means.
Oh wow, you can sideload it? Amazing. All grandma has to do is install Android Studio, enable developer mode, tap the build number seven times, flip on USB debugging, plug into a laptop, accept an RSA key fingerprint, and pop open a terminal. You know, the way normal people install apps.
>> they do not actually give the user access to general purpose computing in the sense that the users can control exactly what computations the device is going to execute
i don't think we were talking about grandma use case
> it is only a matter of time before you cannot meaningfully host anything by yourself outside of these clouds because your cloud terminal will refuse to talk to it.
That's well on its way. Try to log into your bank (or countless other sites) using a VPN. They flat out turn you away. If you don't use VPN but use a different computer or connection you get grilled with "prove you're a human". I get that they are doing anti spam and fraud steps, but the logical conclusion of where this ends up is "if we don't recognize you from our mountains of tracking info we've been compiling, we don't want to do business with you".
Let me play out a scenario, imagine to use a Desktop Hardware like a complete built rig, you would need a specific OS like Windows 11 and you could not run Linux on it, just because it's a vendor lock-in.
Why is this acceptable for phones but would not for the case above?
I know a lot of people don't care, and that's ok, but we should root for an open choice for the users.
> Why is this acceptable for phones but would not for the case above?
PCs happened by accident.
Before the PC, people had TVs - devices not for creating, but for passively consuming content made by big corporations and the state. And we had games consoles - devices not for creating, but for playing games made by a medium-sized company, with strict approval by a huge company (who want a cut). Strictly censored to be age-appropriate, naturally. Pirate radio? Straight to jail.
Before that people had newspapers - media for passively consuming, intended for mass readership, written at the behest of rich newspaper barons with certain political opinions they're keen to push.
And after the PC, we have smartphones - devices not for creating, but for consuming content feeds, curated by big corporations, with rich owners with certain political opinions they're keen to push. A huge company eager to take a cut. A tiny screen, and a keyboard that puts curly braces three keypresses deep. Can't even debug a web page without connecting to a PC. And soon to be strictly censored to be age-appropriate.
Not with the same reach, but some people kinda could! Specifics depended on where you were in the world, but it existed and to some extent still does. In spite of a very rough decade and a half since 2010 culling many of them.
That's really not true at all. Are you aware of the entire home computer industry of the 70s and 80s? Before PCs, you had a beige box you plugged into your TV and typed in games line by line out of a magazine. They DIY scene was enormous as a percentage of total users.
They also blur the line between "computer" and "console", since the NES is practically the same architecture as many contemporary "computers". Homebrew games existed, and weren't that far out of reach. Homebrew has existed on pretty much every console ever.
PCs weren't an accident in any way. They are a direct descendant of "home computers". That's why they were called "personal computers" in the first place.
I think this was because of the “IBM PC Compatible” market. IBM was using off-the-shelf components for its PC system and other manufacturers reverse engineered and cloned the system and started selling IBM clones. Interestingly Microsoft who controlled the OS became the monopoly and gatekeeper of that market, not IBM (hardware). MS was making a ton of money by selling OS licenses and online software stores was not a thing since the Internet was nonexistent/limited. “Developers, developers, developers” were the king in that business model so they didn’t need to give a cut to MS or IBM to build on a PC system.
Saying that I think the situation in the smartphones today is less about the business model and more about control and surveillance.
It’s the same situation as game consoles. Custom built hardware that is only meant to run the one specific vendor OS. There have been many other computing devices like that in the past as well. The general purpose desktop computer that allows a choice of operating systems is actually less common than the other way. Historically, people didn’t expect to run alternate operating systems on a mainframe, 80s and 90s computers like a Commodore 64, Power PC Macs, Amigas and DOS/Windows machines until Linux came along.
That’s odd, because I remember being a user of MUSIC on the university System/360. I imagine it also sounds odd to all those people who ran AT&T Unix on their PDP/11 systems instead of a Digital OS like RTS/11. Or the people who ran Xenix on their PCs. Or the folks like me who installed OS/2 on what was sold as an MS-DOS machine. Then there were the folks who ran A+ on their Atari.
Oh yeah, odd. Anyway, I’m aware of alternate mainframe OSs but I’m not sure how common using one was. Other than OS2, alternate OSs for other systems were rather rare, though it is worth noting that they were not forbidden or blocked.
> I’m aware of alternate mainframe OSs but I’m not sure how common using one was.
Extremely common at major universities and research centres. CTSS, ITS, TENEX, Multics, Unix and even VM/370 were all alternate operating at some point.
> Other than OS2, alternate OSs for other systems were rather rare,
You weren't there, were you? A lot of people replaced MS-DOS with DR-DOS before Microsoft deliberately broke it with Windows. A little later, a number of people were running Unix System V on their PCs, to the extent that there was a regular column about Unix in Byte.
Didn’t Microsoft somehow ruin Dr DOS? Not technically, but didn’t they sue them or something? Which would mean this is the same issue, 40 years later. Yes, I was there on the 80s, but I had a Commodore 64. We did use GEOS, if that counts. I was not present for the 70s.
That was a huge fraction of computing at the time. Before 1992 or so, the only people I was aware of that was into computers were all associated with a University. Typewriters were still actually very common.
I went to a regional state university. We had an older IBM mainframe with a hypervisor and the students and faculty were all users on MUSIC/OS. This was in the early/mid 1990s.
They perform the specific functions that they were programmed to perform, and do not allow arbitrary execution of calculations on the underlying hardware.
Many people, mostly folks who adopt the Apple ecosystem, see this as a positive thing that allows them to delegate undifferentiated decisions on security and ways of working to the vendor.
I am one of those people and hope that Android remains open so that people don't expect Apple open up their hardware, which will result in fragmentation.
> They perform the specific functions that they were programmed to perform
That's the thing. You may have bought a device that was meant to perform a task but after some time the company decides that now it should do a different task. I think that's what stops making you the owner. You can't really choose what to do with it.
You _can_ run other OSes on Macbooks. They're not locked in at all, it's simply that the drivers aren't open source and the hardware is undocumented, but with enough effort (e.g. Asahi) you can run technically anything on it.
all appliances used to come with schematics and repair manuals, there was no prevention of modification or repair. We're talking cars, washing machines, dryers, radios etc.
Separate from computers and phones locking down devices is a much wider issue, usually it is only implemented to reduce liability of the manufacturer or to allow for planned obsolescence.
Because phones aren’t computers first and foremost. It can be hard to see it at this forum, but phones aren’t computers, they are intended to be general purpose devices to solve a set of problems for the vast majority of people on the planet. And a subset of those problems involve things like money and personal information. So the device needs to be secure, even (perhaps especially) from the end user themself because it needs to try to withstand compromise even when the user is drunk or sad or in a rush.
I am not arguing you need to like where this has led, but you have people in sibling comment threads here arguing we need to push back on things assuming you will use a phone when the whole revolution has been getting most of the world online by making phones widely available.
I think historically it has existed like this due to regulation regarding radio sending equipment and the integration between the platform (CPU) and modem in phones.
Due to this the equipment manufacturers where never incentivized to have a "open" ecosystem for the CPU+modem combo. That's why there is no OS war on a per device basis, most phones supports 1 OS officially.
The vendor lock-in scenario for desktop hardware already exists with the latest x86 generation of gaming consoles. Gaming consoles are locked down because the hardware is subsidized with the expectation of revenue from the digital marketplaces they provide.
The yet-to-be-released Steam Machine is not subsidized and is unlocked. Steam is a OS agnostic digital marketplace, so it doesn't matter what OS you install on the machine.
Microsoft doesn't see a threat in allowing other OSes on their Surface hardware because the majority of their revenue comes from M365.
It's just market forces really. In the end, phones provide enough utility for the majority of users while being locked down. There's nothing stopping you from buying a fully-open phone, but there's just very little utility in it for the majority of users.
I see what you did there... and agree completely. If you don't have root, it's not yours. All my Androids (none from this decade) are rooted and I plan to keep them that way.
Few interested hardware vendors, discontinued after 4 years. "mixed reviews at launch, while critics and analysts deemed it to be commercially unsuccessful"
Windows 10 S was another attempt that "Similarly [restricts] software installation to applications obtained via Windows Store." Cancelled after one year.
Exactly the fate I wish upon closed ecosystems. The only question is why iOS is different. I am inclined to say it's the brand status that overpriced luxury goods have that draws rich people initially, making it lucrative and perhaps even a tad prestigious to be there, but surely it's more than that?
I think it’s because the Microsoft Store barely has any apps that users use. The Microsoft Store didn't support the Win32 API, so developers had to rewrite their apps.
Wait, you lost me somewhere. The MS store didn't support the old way of doing things, people had to rewrite their software; yet iOS was... new as well? People had to start from scratch and so that worked?
iOS existed before the Microsoft Store. The apps developed were brand new. No backlash from a new SDK and platform.
Windows RT is closer to iPadOS though. For iPadOS, apps just worked since it’s based off of iOS.
The Microsoft Store only supported a new half-baked SDK that limited what applications were capable of. Developers already had Win32 apps and rewriting them with the new SDK seemed pointless just to support what seemed like a needless limitation.
But they didn't have technology yet to do it properly, so it was trivial for people to sever the tie and install alternative OSes - trivial enough that it was also easy to teach others how to do it.
Now, the tech to make that tie near-unbreakable exists.
The Librem 5 uses a bottom of the barrel, standard industrial CPU from 2017 with no updates. It is no more open than a Google Pixel or any other mobile device. it lacks proper updates, isolated radios, and any form of hardening.
The kill switches are also useless if your device is fully compromised and turned into a spying device, all of your data is already gone. The only thing the switches do as a last resort is block voice recording, which is an improper way of doing it since speakers are essentially just microphones in reverse.
This is false. Please stop writing false statements without any links. NXP promises to produce the i.MX 8M Quad until Jan. 2033. The support will be even longer.
> it lacks proper updates
This is FUD.
> isolated radios
They are isolated with USB. This might be slightly weaker than IOMMU, but for me the benefit of freedom is worth it. There is no shared memory.
> it lacks proper updates, isolated radios, and any form of hardening
FUD and false information. Please stop this.
> The kill switches are also useless if your device is fully compromised
This is false again. It doesn't matter how much my device might be compromised. The attacker will not get any access to the shut down sensors, radios or voice/video, if I use the three kill switches.
> since speakers are essentially just microphones in reverse
> This is false. Please stop writing false statements without any links. NXP promises to produce the i.MX 8M Quad until Jan. 2033. The support will be even longer.
I think they meant that the processor itself is old. It supports ARMv8 and is lacking the enhanced memory protection and execution features of the ARMv9-A processors on newer phones.
> This is false again. It doesn't matter how much my device might be compromised. The attacker will not get any access to the shut down sensors, radios or voice/video, if I use the three kill switches.
The problem is that your device can be compromised quite easily and without you knowing. The kill switches are moot at that point.
Good links, thank you. I agree that my protection is not perfect in general. Fortunately I do not open random websites on my phone; I have my laptop with Qubes OS for that.
> Adding an extension that can access all your browsing data doesn't seem very secure either.
> Fortunately I do not open random websites on my phone
That's the main use for almost everyone. You're suggesting people use a less secure device and are stating that it's more secure if they don't use it in the way it's mostly used?
That doesn't sound like freedom. That sounds like living in paranoia. You bring up FUD in so many comments, but you seem to be living it. Ironically though, you choose to use systems that enable FUD when there are systems that let you not worry.
There are people building secure software and hardware, so people don't have to live in fear when using their devices. That's the freedom that many people care about.
There's the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot. Most people don't care about that.
You missed that I do not recommend Librem 5 to "almost everyone". We are not on a normies forum but on HN.
Also, I do not recommend Librem 5, when somebody asks for a secure device. I mention it, when somebody asks about alternatives to the duopoly, a possibility to have a full, general-purpose computer in a pocket allowing you to tinker with it, or wants to run GNU/Linux baremetal. Such people aren't the audience of GrapheneOS anyway.
And I'm not against GrapheneOS. I never said it was less secure than Librem 5 for typical tasks. I only say, that if you want to have a third option, you can have it today. There will be compromises, which can be dealt with by technical users.
Being on HN does not mean that you are familiar with the intricacies of hardware and low-level software.
> I only say, that if you want to have a third option, you can have it today. There will be compromises, which can be dealt with by technical users.
I think it’s irresponsible to promote it as an alternative device without noting that it’s less secure and full of footguns. Also, disingenuous to promote it as FOSS when it only fits that definition under FSF technicalities. And lastly, to promote it as more open than phones with AOSP distros that utilize the same set of proprietary hardware, just with different communication mechanisms/boundaries.
This is not a forum with legal advises. I inform people about an option, which they asked for. GNU/Linux phones have a similar security approach to GNU/Linux on desktop. People explicitly seeking GNU/Linux should know this. They can also ask or search the Internet.
> I think it’s irresponsible to promote it as an alternative device without noting that it’s less secure and full of footguns
I disagree with you here. Informing about options is better than not informing. "Less secure" depends on a threat model. GNU/Linux on desktop is working well enough for millions of people. So it is a viable security approach for many. Saying that your threat model is the only one that should exist and be promoted is crazy.
> only fits that definition under FSF technicalities
This is one of the strictest definitions there is. By which definition does GrapheneOS run FLOSS?
> same set of proprietary hardware, just with different communication mechanisms/boundaries
More choice is always good, isn't it? If it is not for you, you are free to use and promote the duopoly. (Yes, I consider AOSP obeying Google's development strategy long term. It will not end well. See: this topic.)
Though with a username of fsflover, I think you'll be biased.
Also, another relevant thread (that you were even a part of!) discussing the pointlessness of what Purism did to fit the technicalities: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841267
It's actually worse than I thought. There's the initramfs /lib/firmware loading workaround for the FSF certification of the OS.
But even before that there is code run by the main CPU that loads instructions for the secondary core to load a blob from separate flash memory to pass to the memory controller to initialize it.
All that just to attempt to fit the technicalities of the FSF RYF hardware certification while still loading a blob like every other phone microprocessor.
---
It's interesting that I could make a device that burns efuses to make it obsolete and it could still be considered FSF Respects Your Freedom certified.
> Kill switches only work as a security feature when you activate them before you know you're compromised. But that's impossible.
Indeed, if you use the kill switches in a stupid way, you get no benefit from them. I use them whenever I want to be sure that I can't be tracked or listened to, either because of a potentially compromised device or closed modem that can connect to towers without my knowledge. In other words, they are a proactive feature. I can get 100% privacy whenever I want, independently on any software, which in principle might always get secretly compromised one way or another. Even the amazing, secure GrapheneOS!
How can you be sure your modem on GrapheneOS doesn't send your location to the mothership all the time, even in an "airplane mode"?
Quite frankly, the whole Librem ecosystem is significantly less "open" than GrapheneOS or any desktop Linux variant to anyone who look at things objectively instead of using weird FSF semantics.
Instead of loading firmware in sensible manner like GrapheneOS or desktop Linux distros with the linux-firmware package, they keep PureOS "free of blobs" by having the bootloader inject all of the blobs into memory in an extremely shady manner. Since when was having the bootloader tamper with system memory about freedom and openness?
Oh, and they even have the audacity to market this as the "firmware jail" as if it is any more contained than the linux-firmware package too. Truly impressive stuff.
> Quite frankly, the whole Librem ecosystem is significantly less "open" than GrapheneOS or any desktop Linux variant to anyone who look at things objectively instead of using weird FSF semantics.
You will have a point when your Google phone runs Replicant. Now this is just empty words, i.e., FUD. Which blobs are running on the Librem 5 CPU? Which blobs are running on GrapheneOS CPU?
Which blobs are running on the Librem 5 CPU? Which blobs are running on GrapheneOS CPU?
Both the Pixel and Librem 5 have firmware baked into the SoC that is executed.
On GrapheneOS, the firmware is signed and updated along with the OS.
On the Librem 5, the firmware for Wifi/Bluetooth is stored on a NOR chip, which is read from and mounted into the OS by the initramfs into /lib/firmware.
Not-withstanding the above, Librem 5 components such as the USB controller, touch screen controller, radios, battery, etc simply have closed-source firmware baked in (stored on some flash chip on these components), but it doesn't mean that they are not there or in use.
In both cases, components either do not get proper firmware updates from the OS, or they are too old/low quality to get any firmware updates from the vendors to begin with. Storing firmware on the component is also a less secure approach than having signed firmware loaded by the OS, as it now means that these components have persistent storage which can be attacked.
Aside from all of the above, they also use a dedicated CPU core to run firmware blobs for things like memory training.
In essence, what the Librem 5 has achieved is shuffling proprietary firmware storage around instead of eliminating their existence or execution. It is not any more "free" or "open" than anyone else while also being less secure.
Depends on the phone. Arguably though, GrapheneOS has the legacy of years of thousands of security researchers working to secure Android from third-party network and GNSS modules.
---
Just so you know, I'm not using Librem or GrapheneOS. I'm looking at this objectively and have no skin in the game.
In this case I do not understand why you are ignoring the words of a Librem 5 developer saying that no blobs are running on the main CPU: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943487
I'll take his word that no blobs are running on the main CPU. But the process itself is error prone. It's mounting flash storage with blobs into the filesystem of the OS. The OS can load modules directly from the storage.
> There is not a single non-free blob in the OS that runs there once the bootloader is up (unless you put some there by yourself, which you're of course free to do).
"unless you put some there by yourself, which you're of course free to do" also means unless someone else puts one there.
---
I think the "firmware jail" loader also uses Smart Direct Memory Access (SDMA)?
---
You can run blobs on the main CPU with strong isolation with TEE and other hardware security features.
And the firmware for Bluetooth/Wifi is loaded in by having the initramfs read it from the NOR flash, mount it in /lib/firmware, then it is business as usual like a desktop Linux distribution.
It's not something special. It's just a hackjob. They shuffle the files around and made it much harder to update.
Can I buy a Librem 5 here in Brazil? (Unless it has ANATEL certification, which I doubt it has, buying online from outside the country is not an option, since it will be rejected by customs.)
Yes? Modern portable computing enables counter-surveillance of police, better communication and knowledge access for dissidents, and interface with institutional computer systems for any number of ends. The George Floyd protests don't happen if the bystanders didn't have smartphones, or if protestors had to carry around an Alienware tower; the Snowden leaks don't happen at the magnitude they did without memory miniaturization. There are international examples, too, and commensurate crackdowns on computing freedom (particularly in Hong Kong).
You've got a supercomputer and a library and a set of video production equipment in your pocket, among other things. The capabilities of such a device are fundamentally different from something that's tethered to a desk or that's conspicuous when out-and-about. The idea of it being open and untrackable is exciting for some and terrifying for others.
Out of all the things that have computational power, PC is pretty much the only one that comes with a built-in way to replace its own system. Xbox, PlayStation, Telsa, Smart Fridges, etc. don't have this ability from the beginning.
So yeah, the society has largely accepted this. PC is the exception.
Do not sign up. Don't join the program by signing up for the Android Developer Console and agreeing to their irrevocable Terms and Conditions. Don't verify your identity. Don't play ball.
Google's plan only works if developers comply. Don't.
Talk other developers and organizations out of signing up.
Add the FreeDroidWarn library to your apps to warn users.
Run a website? Add the countdown banner.
This is the part that makes the least sense. It shows a profound lack of empathy. For many devs this is equivalent to saying "Give up your livelihood to show you support this principle, that will likely have little to no effect". This is advice aimed at wealthy hobbyists.
What's worse is that it's not even a principled view. If you really don't trust Google, then you shouldn't rely on Google's software no matter what policies they change or promises they make. The problem is actually far more profound, that citizens are now expected to have a closed smartphone from one of the duopolies which government and corporate entities need to trust, which means they cannot allow it to be entirely your device. This is a tacit policy that must be defeated as a policy matter.
Lack of empathy better describes Google's psychopathic pursuit of ever more control over its users, while the products get ever more enshittified of course.
That's not the solution - developers or businesses are squeezed into signing up anyway to survive/make a profit. The only viable alternative is to create an alternative - Linux phones.
I agree. There isn't even a need to create alternative OSes: they exist. Be it Linux phones or (more realistically for the vast majority of users) AOSP-based OSes like GrapheneOS and LineageOS.
The real problem is that:
1. Most manufacturers prevent us from unlocking the bootloader, adding custom signing keys and relocking it. Interestingly the Google Pixels allow that. This should be mandatory.
2. Many apps choose to ban alternative OSes by use of Play Integrity, i.e. checking that the OS is signed by Google. This should be illegal.
3. Bonus: it should be mandatory for manufacturers to make it reasonably easy to support from an alternative OS. That means publishing device trees, for instance. This should be mandatory.
I really believe we should fight for that. Then we wouldn't have to care about what Google does on their side.
I think you are right and I voted your contribution up.
But you don't really think it will work?
Developers were kings once. Big companies turned them into slaves.
To be sincere, they were never truly ours. A proof of that is they were able to come up with this, and you don't have a way to reject it.
What we actually need are (open) alternatives, not to double down on Google's ecosystem and Google-controlled OS. We need to control the device we bought and be able to run whatever we wish on it. Just like we do on PCs.
https://postmarketos.org is working on developing a Linux distribution for mobile devices (including smartphones), aligned with these goals: free open source software, empowering users to control their own devices.
I won't deny that a lot of application support still needs more work. But this is definitely moving in the right direction.
But unfortunately there really isn't a great alternative. I painfully attempted to use Ubuntu Touch and its always the same thing. The lack of available apps, the lack of app development in general for the platform was pretty eye opening. Add in having it only run on really old devices isn't much help either. Its promising, but a long ways off even from some of the non-standard roms I've used like Evolution X which is a Lineage fork.
If this really does cripple a lot of the known custom roms out there without any solid alternatives other than Graphene? It could really be a huge turning point.
Yes, I have been able to run Android applications within Waydroid on my phone for years now (as long as they don't require attestation). But that's not how Sailfish does it, they have their own proprietary implementation.
Security is essential for an appliance like a smart phone. I fight the general purpose computing battle on my desktop with Linux, but on my phone I just need something that won’t be hacked.
I really don't understand this mentality at all. Freedom is about the ability to do more stuff, not the requirement to do more stuff. Meaning, everything you want to do with a locked down phone, you can do with an open one.
There's no, like, gun to your head saying you HAVE to side load apps. You can just... not... do that. If you think side loading is insecure. You can download 100% of your apps from the play store. In fact, that's what 95% of people do.
I mean, what's the threat model here? That you somehow forget your own belief about side loading being insecure and then accidently side load an app? Does that even seem possible?
I can kind of understand this argument for granny who doesn't know where she is. Kind of. But for you, it makes no sense. I mean really, think about what you're saying here about you as a computer user or even as a person.
Hey, I’ve side loaded and F-Droided and all that. But here’s the thing: I just need the phone to work, minimally spy on me, and not turn into some horrible malware sinkhole. Google and their OEM ecosystem lost my confidence on all three counts.
One thing I used to side load or F-Droid was a keyboard, to circumvent what I perceived as privacy violations. But my selection Year 0 got forked or disappeared by Year 2, idk when or why, and thats a glaring security or privacy risk that I don’t have time to monitor and figure.
I actually thought Google’s solution in the article was charming— toggle developer mode. If you’re in developer mode you know you’ve got something to monitor and mitigate. Smartphones just aren’t powerful enough to use for their own defense at a consumer level against professionalized hackers, and from a product positioning perspective Google’s move is completely defensible.
Well people can be tricked into sideloading apps if it’s possible.
To be clear I’m totally on your side and I think that’s a ridiculous reason to not have an open system, but let’s not pretend it’s not a possibility because doing so harms our otherwise very solid argument
I miss data to confirm any of this does significantly improve security.
Anecdata:
I have yet to meet someone who have been targeted by unknowingly side-loading apps.
If they really want to improve security they can work on much more impactful changes.
I know people having been scammed by ads proudly delivered by instagram and google.
I read about malicious apps that somehow went through official store filtering.
I've resigned to the fact that I'll need to use two phones, one with locked down Android/iOS for banking applications and government services (those require strong bank ID around these parts), another with some kind of a Linux or unlocked Android for literally everything else. Oh well, such is life, most people don't care enough about this to pressure Google/Apple/banks/governments into yielding.
A big reason why a non-locked-down OS is absolutely vital to me is that sometimes I (reluctantly) have to travel to places where I need to install obscure VPN/proxy services to be able to access international internet. Most services present in app stores have been banned for years now, and the government sometimes even succeeds in making Apple/Google remove the more effective ones from the stores.
What we need to push back on is making a phone a requirement to do routine banking and conducting other necessary business. There is no reason I should be required to have a phone in order to query my balance or transfer money to someone, when I have a perfectly good computer sitting here.
The physical keys, like Yubico, help with that. However, I have not been convinced that a password manager with unique, strong passwords on all my accounts shouldn't suffice. I don't know why I have to be penalized because other users don't use best practices.
Bank apps in India don't run on rooted phones, need developer mode and adb disabled. At the same time, their website works fine on Firefox on Linux where I can literally go through all their front-end source, attach and run debuggers.
What even is going on? Why are banks doing this security theatre when all their apps are doing is calling some backend apis?
> anybody who does banking on their phone is taking a big and unnecessary risk
It is not necessarily a matter of choice. Besides what the other commenter notes about 2FA, in some countries banks have been removing functionality from their online-banking website, and you can only do certain things in the phone app.
> in some countries banks have been removing functionality from their online-banking website, and you can only do certain things in the phone app.
The most infuriating I've seen, is a bank which removed the anual tax report (which you need to do the anual income tax) from the online-banking website, requiring you to use the phone app... to download a PDF file, which you then have to transfer to the computer anyway so you can print it!
This annoys me to no end. I have an old phone that I boot up occasionally because it holds all the apps that I only need once per year for a niche feature that is only accessible in their app. I don't need 200 apps on my main that I would otherwise never open.
See, the thing is, here you can't use banking on your computer without having a bespoke authentication app on your phone. There used to be a system of one-time codes sent via paper mail, but even that has been scrapped by now, so using bank ID apps is literally the only option across all of the local banks. In my bank the ID app and the bank app are even different apps, and it's the ID app that's the truly important one to have (and that, of course, hates rooted/modified phones with a passion).
The government services also go through these ID apps, although there is a poorly supported alternative that uses USB smart card readers. I have not seen a single person actually use it, probably for a reason, though I'm planning to get one just to have a backup...
At least in Finland's Nordea bank you can order a physical code calculator, they used to be small enough to keep on your wallet but the new one is the size of an old small phone. It even has a QR scanner. So I just keep it at home.
I live in a "developed" country and don't have a banking app on my phone. It's a choice. Sometimes it's a choice of which bank you bank with. Sometimes it's a choice to stick with more traditional means of interacting with that bank and not even checking your account using a website, but it's absolutely a choice.
Real Linux on phones is a thing. They're usable, but most hardware is getting old. E.g. PinePhone still works fine, but they recently announced that it's unlikely that we see a new version. They mention that it's hard to be competitive with hardware when people can install PostmarketOS and SailfishOS on cheap old Android Devices for a similar experience.
Only if your threat model is equal to the one from the GrapheneOS crowd, and only if you value freedom less than maximal security. It's fine if this is your choice, just don't say this is the only reasonable choice.
Concerning "usable", Librem 5 is my daily driver. I have no backup phone.
Also, after skimming your link and seeing "Hardware kill switches are nothing but marketing frills", I can state that this is nothing else than FUD. Kill switches can protect me, when GrapheneOS can't. You have to trust that your proprietary modem never spies on you. I don't have to. Also, here is a couple of nice discussions of this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37507414 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28500824
I think this is the only long term solution, even if cumbersome.
I’m curious what secondary devices people are using. I have a second hand Surface Go running Fedora 43 with Gnome, it’s a bit big but it’s doing its job well.
>Android's openness was never just a feature. It was the promise that distinguished it from iPhone. Millions chose Android for exactly that reason. Google is now revoking that promise unilaterally, on devices already in people's pockets, because they've decided they have enough market dominance and regulatory capture to get away with it.
This is why I've stuck with Android for the past 15 years.
This is a very HN view of Android. The "openness" of Android was for mobile device manufacturers, not app developers and end-users. Android's prominence was driven by the myriad of low-cost Android devices by multiple device manufacturers, whereas iOS is only available via iPhones.
The vast majority of users don't care about "openness" of the OS. They care about the utility of their phone in everyday life.
Can I access digital payment systems, social media apps, and entertainment apps? How's the camera on the phone? How big is the screen? Is it waterproof? How expensive is it?
These are the questions the majority of phone buyers care about. Not, can I download an app off of a random website and install it?
---
I would say that the majority of developers don't care about the "openness" either. They care about accessing a wide audience and getting revenue from their work. Free apps without ads or in-app purchases (zero-revenue apps) are the minority.
Google is also fine with losing the zero-revenue app developers because they provide no value for Google. Actually, they are probably a loss for Google, since Google provides Google Play Services.
Just because you're HN dweller doesn't make it HN view. The openness, freedom, customizability and accessibility (money wise) were the tenets that differentiated Android from Apple devices.
>The openness, freedom, customizability and accessibility (money wise) were the tenets that differentiated Android from Apple devices.
i have never heard someone outside of tech circles (e.g. HN) mention openness, freedom, or customization, even as a passing comment.
they use a phone to access mainstream apps (youtube, instagram, reddit, maybe their bank) and text/call. mention "apk" or "fdroid" and their eyes start to glaze over.
cheaper devices, sure, i agree with that as being the differentiator to the average non-techie. the rest is, at least in my experience, absolutely a "HN view".
> i have never heard someone outside of tech circles... mention "apk" or "fdroid" and their eyes start to glaze over
My no-tech middle-aged uncles and aunts know what apks are, and that you need to install apps from somewhere apart from the main Play store if you want them to have no ads.
My brother, who's relationship with tech barely extends to the latest samsung flagship, threw away his iphone because he couldn't get all the apps he wanted.
I think _your_ impression of people outside tech circles is as HN-centric as it gets :)
Openness for end-users was never a tenet. It is a very HN view to think that open-source equals freedom for users, and to state that it was a promise when it never was.
Freedom for users was the motivating factor that created open source in the first place. Rewriting history to serve your own ends doesn't help your credibility.
I don’t know what you’re going on about “rewriting history”. I never mentioned the history of open source.
From the Open Handset Alliance:
“The Android platform will be made available under one of the most progressive, developer-friendly open-source licenses, which gives mobile operators and device manufacturers significant freedom and flexibility to design products.”
Give mobile operators and device manufacturers freedom, not consumers.
If anything, the people claiming that Android was created for freedom for consumers are rewriting history.
> can I download an app off a random website and install it
This is a straw man. This change hurts third party app stores such as F-Droid the most. I vastly prefer it to Play Store for the same reasons I prefer GNU/Linux to macOS or Windows (discounting the fact that Linux no longer needs hacks to "just work").
> Nowhere is their goal to allow users complete control of their device. Android was built as an open-OS for the mobile device industry, not end-users.
The fact that having root access is not the default supports that. Without root we're just "consumers" and that's how they see us. There's a lot of discussion about the security model of Android and how root is bad. But we've come to the point to argue that having root access is not only less secure but that we don't need root at all. A lot of replies, even on HN, are like:
> Why would you even need root access? What is it you're trying to accomplish?
That's a much bigger security smokescreen than the one in TFA. Sure, having root may be dangerous, especially if you don't know what you're doing, but it's still a choice. Having no phone or doing banking IRL or not downloading apps from the Play Store you haven't heard of before would also be more secure. But these 3 options don't align to the financial gain the consumers would bring to the providers. The consumers having no root, on the other hand, benefits the providers.
When a platform ditches openness, you lose more than a seemingly insignificant market segment that makes no money. Using money as the only metric is stupid and myopic.
I developed my first Android app when I was around 16 years old and I remember distinctly wanting to publish it on Google Play, but couldn't because they required developers to be 18+, and this was even before they introduced strict identity verification requirements. And iOS was a lost cause as XCode famously requires an operating system that only runs on very specific hardware for which I had no money. No matter, I published an apk on a website and ended up reaching a few tens of thousands of users that way. My app ended up transforming a (niche) industry and making a real impact on the world.
If Android isn't open, we lose the last open mobile operating system, which will have immeasurable negative effects on computing as a whole. People will need permission from either Apple or Google to create any mobile program. If you don't fit into their neat little system, you don't get permission. If I hadn't been able to publish my app for another 2 years I probably would've shelved it, decided it was stupid, forgot about it, got busy with other things, and never published it.
This is why I really wanted Capyloon to take off [1]. The idea was to build a whole mobile OS around PWAs. App Stores are just CDNs. There are no weird rules about payment processors. The ecosystem did not need to start from scratch.
Unfortunately, it just never gained the necessary momentum.
I was as well. It was very early, but not necessarily too early.
I think part of the problem is that they decided to have the flagship devices be low-end hardware, rather than high-end hardware. They were trying to ensure that development took low-end hardware into account, but they failed to consider that by the time the platform grew, high-end would become mid-range.
It's hard for me to know for sure, but to me it felt like the fact that none of the firefoxOS phones were targetted as devices developers would themselves want to use as their main phone was a big misstep in strategy.
I actually use the ability to install custom software on Android. I actually use the ability for Android apps to bundle JITs, and language interpreters, and other things that allow you to extend the app at runtime. The Apple walled garden would be unusable for me. And moves like this one to turn the Android ecosystem into the Apple ecosystem will generally be regressions.
If anything, I'd like more openness in Android. For instance, apps should not have any control over what data I can back up; I should be able to back up every aspect of every app, restore it to a new phone, and apps should not be allowed to care.
You can download torrents on an android and plug usb media devices into it. When I was bicycle touring Europe with my wife a couple years ago we constantly downloaded books for direct input into our kobos and shows and movies to fall asleep to at night you could play from random, often old and crappy, hotel and airbnb televisions. You can’t do any of that on an iPhone.
That said; iPhone is my main phone, has been for a decade or more. But I deeply appreciate what you can do with an android.
I used to build custom apps for my Android all the time, install APKs, transfer files over USB, use USB tethering on my Linux computer, torrent, use a mouse and keyboard (I think iOS can do this now though), use the integrated terminal, etc.
A few years ago, iOS lacked basic features like widgets, NFC, calculator on their tablets, etc. And iOS still has a completely inferior keyboard (I used to write code and essays on my Android while walking) and a completely inferior notification system. Androids are also the only phones still offering a fingerprint scanner, which is way better for me. These nice things all combine well with the oppenness.
What's worse is that we're clearly in a progression of restriction. Bootloader restrictions, app installation restrictions, "age verification" requirements, etc. Openness is being locked down from every angle with serious momentum, it's not anticipated to stop here.
The openness of Android also acts as a check of sorts on how restrictive the walled garden can get. If google were to clamp down on useful functionality in the play store, then you could always install apks yourself. But if the latter is no longer an option, then there's much more temptation to google for the former.
I get the feeling that clamping down on useful functionality is often an unfortunate side-effect of closing down paths that are being exploited by criminals to harm users.
What should Google do when a change they are making to protect regular less-technical users breaks functionality needed by more advanced users?
If the user must click through a tons of disclaimers (including locked 60-second timeouts with huge WARNING: SCAM ALERT or something) in something buried in settings to get scammed, I think the few edge cases may be worth the tradeoff of being able to install apks.
Remember there is already malware-scanning by default (by Google play), apps need to ask for permissions, they generally can't read other app data or control say banking apps, modify system data (at all), etc..
The threat vectors seem already restricted. I haven't met anyone which has fallen to actual Android malware ever (that I can remember), but I can remember several close family members which were victims of simpler social engineering scams (mostly unsuccessfully) recently.
The problem with the toxic max-security[0] arguments is that it is always possible to invent a more gullible fool. There is no security measure that will perfectly protect a user from getting scammed out of everything, save for scamming them first and then treating their property as your own. That's the Apple argument. The only way you can keep people secure without falling into the same rhetorical trap Apple employs is with bright red lines that you swear not to cross, no matter how many people wind up getting scammed, because at the end of the day, people are adults, and their property is theirs.
Furthermore, we have to acknowledge that scam-fighting is not Google's job. They can assist with law enforcement (assuming they do not violate the rights of their customers while doing so) but they should not be making themselves judge, jury, and executioner in the process.
If you want a more concrete technical recommendation, locking down device management profiles would be a far more effective and less onerous countermeasure than putting a 24-hour waiting period on unknown app installs. Device management exists almost exclusively for the sake of businesses locking down property they're loaning out to employees, but a large subset of scams abuse this functionality. Part of the problem is that installing a device profile is designed to sound non-distressing, because it's "routine", even though you're literally installing spyware. Ideally, for a certain subset of strong management profile capabilities, the phone should wipe itself (and warn you that it's going to wipe itself) if you attempt to install that profile.
Requiring every package in F-Droid to pay a developer licensing fee is not protecting anyone, in fact it will make people less safe. The whole model of F-Droid relies on free software, needing to pay a license fee to Google banishes people who have no profit motive - Google is explicitly banning a nonthreatening group of developers.
> What should Google do when a change they are making to protect regular less-technical users breaks functionality needed by more advanced users?
Have people read and type in a message saying "I'm not on the phone with a potential scammer who is trying to get me to install a package that may be dangerous", trust people to actually read what they're typing, and if they can't read and comprehend that, stop getting in the way of them shooting themselves in the foot.
That requires having a PC to unlock basic functionality on your Android device, assuming the change we're talking about is still app installs.
I don't think OS vendors should be expected to keep people from doing dangerous things. A warning label saying "hey that's dangerous because..." is reasonable, but anything more and they're trying to be my sysadmin against my will.
The sysadmin part is their value-add. One reason my current phone being an iPhone after being 100% Android for a decade are the better walls and nicer garden.
These are sold as consumer devices and not general computers. It sounds like you want something different. They’re selling cars and you want a motorcycle.
Android was very open when it was released and for some time after. Installing APKs directly was easy. Most devices had unlocked or unlockable bootloaders. An Android phone treated its user much like a PC did.
More sysadmin-as-a-service type stuff is fine as long as the opt-out is easy. This isn't. I'm upset about the rug pull.
I understand. I was one of the 25 people excited about the OtherOS option on the PS3. When Sony removed that in an update I was bummed because that’s one of the reasons I bought it.
You never know though. Sometimes things go the other way. When the iPhone launched there was no way to create apps for it or install third party applications except as web apps.
People keep framing it as tinkerers versus normies. That's not the real problem.
The real problem is that prior to verification, Google can't ban ICE tracking apps (or whatever the next problematic government doesn't like) from Android, and after verification they will be able to for most users.
They say they won't do that. I might even believe the people currently running things won't do that, but they will be incentivized to do that in the future, and incentives are much better at predicting outcomes than intent.
I reject your premise. I do not believe that the primary motivation here is to protect less technical users. However even were I to accept that, I would say the change is an unacceptable one thus they should either figure something else out or do nothing.
I think they know that they are going to lose some users.
If you are a fan of open source, maybe this will be a good thing. Maybe this will drive more people and money to open source projects directed at making a better mobile OS.
>For you, is the openness of Android appealing as a matter of principle or does it enable you to do things you couldn't otherwise do?
Both. I don't like the idea of locked down computers and that includes phones, especially now that they're so prominent in our lives.
I dabbled in Android development for fun a decade ago and I loved how there was no barrier to entry. I've loaded apps that aren't available on the Play Store and have loaded apps that my friends have made just as fun side projects.
There was a handheld gaming system in the early 2000s called Cybiko. Cybiko and Sega Dreamcast homebrew opened my mind up to the power of computers and having control of your hardware. These things should not be locked down. I liked messing around with making little programs on the Cybiko and downloading homebrew games for it and the Dreamcast. The openness of Android really excited me when it was new because I thought of it the same way as a Cybiko or Dreamcast or PC and not a locked down device where I can only run software approved by the hardware manufacturer.
I modify several apps for my own use in ways that wouldn't get accepted upstream (or are proprietary), and I modify OS components to reduce the impact of opinionated Google UI design (and Apple is worse in this context).
Both, very much both, and I would assume that the 'actually being able to use the device in whatever way I want' feeds back into the 'this should be a thing we can do with purchased-to-own hardware' feeling
I'll chime in with a really basic example. On my Android phone, I can have syncthing run as a background task. I can point other applications to use a data folder, in my syncthing share, and store their persistent state there. The Camera app, for example. Or Obsidian, my current favorite note taking app. Syncthing, by virtue of being always on and manipulating a decades old, very well understood filesystem concept, "magically" syncs all of these changes to every other device I own. Entirely offline, even if the internet is out, because the devices can just talk to each other.
So far, I have been utterly incapable of getting my iPad to do anything remotely similar. It can run syncthing, technically, but not in the background. Apps don't have a shared filesystem structure, so it's difficult to get anything else set up to "save within my shared folder" in a way that would work, and that disregards that the syncing cannot occur when anything else is open. There's all sorts of cloud backup options, but those require the internet and even when they're working, there's this awkward import/export flow that adds friction to the whole dance.
In isolation this would just be a small papercut, I guess, but these sorts of limitations are all over iOS. It's just terribly hostile to anyone not fully committed to the Cloud-first, Apple-hardware ecosystem. Android doesn't care, and doesn't have to care, because it lets me run the software I want. It's a really small set of programs too, at the end of the day. (Firefox with real extensions is the other one.)
This is the exact reason we switched my wife from iPhone to Android – because her iPhone couldn't sync reliably for our shared password vault or for Immich.
Well for instance the top app on fdroid is apparently "simpmusic" which would be impossible to run on an iphone because apple doesn't allow apps like it [1]... and it has 800k downloads from f-droid by itself.
To be clear though android isn't stooping to Apple levels yet. You can still do anything, it just makes it obnoxious to do so.
This is going to make it more difficult for non-open source projects to get a foothold in the future because people are not going to trust a promise any more. Like, I have this thing called a smart phone. Is it open source? No? Oh well.
But even if millions did bought an Android phone for ill-defined defined, about 15 billion Android phones were sold over the years, which could very well make those millions a minority, with most having other reasons for their purchase.
From what I can tell, Graphene OS will be unaffected. Some of the app stores like Aurora and F-Droid may run into problems during the verification process. Best I can tell (and read from other sources) is an inconvenient 24 hour wait period and many have said the Graphene team will overcome that in short order.
I would say keep the faith as I'm in the same boat and have made my choice for privacy and control. Giving up everything when it could very well be a minor setback is worth holding the line.
You have been able to sideload on iOS for years; I first did it in 2021 but I think it was earlier than that. You just needed to create a server on a Mac and you could easily load apps on, all without any kind of special jailbreak. When Delta got released on the App Store, that was cool and all, but I wasn't as impressed as others because I had already been playing emulators on my iPhone for years.
Was it convenient? No, of course not, but it's been an option for quite awhile; to me the biggest advantage for Android was the fact that it was relatively easy to sideload apps.
To be clear, I don't like that Google is doing this, and I think arguing that it's for security is a half-truth at best. I could make my phone 100% "secure" by pounding a nail through the NAND chip; no one is getting into my phone after that.
With the advent of vibe coding, a part of me wonders how hard it would be to hack together my own phone OS with a Raspberry Pi or something and a USB SIM card reader. Realistically probably too much work for me, but a man can dream.
Just to play devils advocate, the petition is a bit of FUD too, no? I ask as an F-droid user and downloader of unofficial apks. Speaking purely from my own experience, all the side-loaded apps I care about are fungible; I could get them or similar quality equivalents from GPS. With the exception of a 4chan reader, that hasn't been hosted there and likely won't be. I don't mind the 1 day wait too much.
I understand political dissidents and those living under authoritarians may have much more concrete Fs and Ds but for me (us?) it's mostly U.
I do. It's my device. And I've been in the position of having to buy a replacement phone in a pinch; having to wait an extra day before having a usable replacement is not acceptable.
In terms of apps I might not be able to get from the Play store:
- Signal, depending on what country I'm in in the future and whether they've tried to restrict things they can't backdoor.
- Vanilla Music, which remains the best music player I've used. (I wish there were an Android version of Quod Libet.)
- A fully capable version of Termux. (the Play store currently has a less capable version that's maintained separately, which could go away if someone decides to stop putting up with it).
- Syncthing-Fork, which has at times been undermaintained in the Play store.
I'm gonna try out Vanilla Music now. FWIW I use Musicolet from GPS and it's quite nice. I hope to learn whether and how our criteria intersect by exploring Vanilla....
Update: out of the box it seems to be reading tags strangely. Maybe I could fix this studying the settings more, but I'd say you have an upgrade opportunity switching off Vanilla. Signal is hard to replace though.
Honestly, the only thing I want out of Vanilla is the filesystem view. The only modes I ever use with a music player are to browse files as I organized them into folders, queue them up, and play the queue on repeat and/or shuffle.
The problem is the slipper slope. If we let Google get away with this, it will only get worse.
Just see the Play Integrity API making the user experience more difficult on more secure devices like GOS with mo security benefit.
>Play Integrity permits a device with years of missing security patches. It isn't a legitimate security feature. It checks for a device in compliance with Google's Android business model, not security.
> Starting September 2026, a silent update, nonconsensually pushed by Google, will block every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with Google, signed their contract, paid up, and handed over government ID.
This is false. Google will provide two other flows for app distribution that are different than this.
> Every app and every device, worldwide, with no opt-out.
Again, false. There is an opt-out called the "advanced flow".
But the "opt-out" will not prevent ecosystem effects caused by the default shutdown of convenient app installs due to the policy. Not even for GrapheneOS users. It's a global policy by a body we never voted for. You can't opt-out of that different world by waiting 24-hours, the ecosystem could have permanent effects. This is coming from a company that doesn't even bother to expose a permission to disable Internet access per app. It's there underneath, but they just ... don't expose the choice.
Is it really going to have ecosystem effects? Surely the small portion of power-users who are bothering to intentionally sideload apps can click a couple of buttons. Or just load via ADB and avoid the entire thing.
The entire point here is to prevent scam actors from using a false sense of urgency to defraud people. That is a serious vulnerability that needs to be addressed somehow, and I think this is a good compromise that doesn't impact people's ability to sideload.
I say this as someone who sideloads apps literally every day.
Will mandatory ID gatekeeping of developers have ecosystem effects? Surely the only question is how much? You may install apps over ADB every day, but APK installing is much more convenient and open-source F-Droid developers currently don't have to do a thing to be "allowed" to ship APKs.
`The entire point here is to prevent scam actors from using a false sense of urgency to defraud people.`
The proposed architecture is a general developer gate, it is not a proportionate response to the problem - it isn't even proposing to gate specific app permissions, it's being able to install the apps from APKs at all under a regime they administer, with users forced to have this change with no prior consent, only opt-out, and distribution limiting work-arounds (that harm reach).
If Android were to ask the user if they wanted to disable installing downloaded apps from developers who haven't shown Google IDs for their own safety, and let end users give informed consent about what self-protection behaviour level they want for their system, at the point of roll-out, or device setup, that would be quite different.
Why should Google be trusted to gate what apps can be easily shared, when stock Android won't even allow users to toggle Internet access per-app? It isn't proportionate compared to other permissions they could mediate, and worse, it's a centralised architecture vulnerable to authoritarian pressure, and afterwards they will be well positioned to lock it down more.
> The entire point here is to prevent scam actors from using a false sense of urgency to defraud people. That is a serious vulnerability that needs to be addressed somehow
Does it, and if it does, does it need to be addressed by an OS vendor creating a mechanism to ban developers for most users? I'm not convinced of the former, and I'm certain the latter is bad. I predict within ten years, we will see this used against something that is not malware.
What do you mean "ban developers for most users"? Most users get their apps through the play store, which will still exist here. Some users sideload apks, which is also a functionality that will still exist.
> we will see this used against something that is not malware.
See what exactly used against something that is not malware? The Play Store already has requirements other than "don't be malware". If you're talking about the sideloading requirements, all of these requirements apply to every app, not just malware.
Recently, both Apple and Google banned apps for reporting immigration raids in the USA from their respective stores. Android users can still trivially download such apps from other sources. After the verification requirement, nothing changes as long as the developer has a permission slip from Google. If they don't, users have a waiting period that could be a critical delay in an emergency like a crackdown by an oppressive government.
Google has stated that it will only withhold such permission from developers who distribute malware. I imagine they'll stick to that promise at first, but long-term I think they won't. Once it's possible for them to impose partial bans on developers, governments have every incentive to pressure them to do it.
You deliberately took the second quote out of context, in order to (attempt to) refute it. Here's the quote, with context:
> Starting September 2026, a silent update, nonconsensually pushed by Google, will block every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with Google, signed their contract, paid up, and handed over government ID. Every app and every device, worldwide, with no opt-out.
That is not false, it's completely accurate. You don't have to take my word for it, though, the Android developer docs have a helpful page detailing the plan [1].
As for the "advanced flow", the article discusses it in detail.
The plan does not outline what that quote does. You only have to do all of the things the quote claims you do in one of the three possible deployment flows. In "advanced flow" you don't have to do any of them.
No, you quoted some of the text. Hence my statement that you removed the context. If you read the full quote, it's clearly stating that you cannot opt-out of the update.
I don't care, I run Graphene, and my phone is definitely mine. Most Android apps just work, and the ones that don't are the kind of malware I am happy to do without.
I use GrapheneOS too. Most of the time it works great, with some weird bugs around group messages and needing to restart every now and then to get to a fully functional state between the browser and keyboard properly working with each other and the network connectivity going away. I do enjoy full control on network connectivity and notifications.
But beyond whether the OS is good or not, "fuck you, I've got mine" is not only sad as a position in general, it is also a bad tactical choice, because over long enough timeframes you can't assure that you can keep yours if others are deprived.
I agree about "I got around the system so I don't care how bad it is.", but it is at least still a form of saying "an alternative to this problem is Graphene", and that can't be repeated enough until a whole lot more people are using it, or anything else like Lineage.
Graphene (or anything else) will only stay a useful option if a whole lot more people use it so that government agencies and banks can't ignore that many people. A whole lot more people need to feel they aren't completely alone if they thought about using it, that it's actually a real option and not a kooky crap option.
Right now agencies & companies can totally ignore them all, and everything that still works today is just luck.
I haven't used Graphene myself. At the moment I have a stock rom that's merely rooted using the official manufacturer supplied bootloader unlock, and my small local credit union bank apps work, and the LG app that controls my air conditioners and microwave does not. Even if the bank apps didn't work it wouldn't matter because they have working web sites, and I never wanted an an app for my appliances in the first place.
But any day that could change.
It's just luck the banks have web sites that work in firefox on linux, and just luck there are no functions I need on those appliances that require the app.
> "fuck you, I've got mine" is not only sad as a position in general, it is also a bad tactical choice
I don't think the parent was saying that.
My opinion is that it is actually the real fight: it should be mandatory for manufacturers to make it possible to have an alternative OS (which includes allowing to unlock/relock the bootloader and add custom signing keys) and it should be mandatory for big companies (e.g. banks) to not ban those alternative OSes with Play Integrity or whatever goddamn checks they make.
Fighting about what Google does on the Google flavour of AOSP is a distraction, IMO.
Devs have been warning F-Droid about this for years:
It's quite problematic that someone can currently upload a package name belonging to another organization to the Play Store and that should have been stopped years ago since it was used in many cases for scamming and squatting on package names clearly belonging to others. Package names are meant to start with a reverse domain belonging to the owner such as app.grapheneos for our grapheneos.app domain. They could enforce this based on domains authorizing usage without enforcing ID verification and that's what we would have proposed.
This is one of the ways F-Droid has ignored standard best practices including security practices in a way that's already causing problems but is now a massive issue for them. If they had started doing things properly many years ago when it was first brought up, then they'd be in a much better situation today. They're going to need to deal with this by renaming all their package names to org.fdroid. to avoid issues with the proposed changes. This is problematic because existing users will stop getting updates. It's better to use a prefix than a suffix where a developer could end up changing their mind about whether it makes sense resulting in conflict over the name, which is fair since they still own it if it's their reverse domain.
I'm running GrapheneOS too and while I've experienced the same, I'm dreading the day any of my banking apps update and suddenly start demanding full Play Integrity API support (GrapheneOS only has Basic) causing them to fail to open. Hasn't happened yet but it could.
It always feels like my phone experience is just a pleasant intermezzo. My banking app (ABN Amro) works, government apps (DigiD) work, everything just works, and I get security and a certain degree of distance between me and Google. I can use F-Droid to install useful apps, and incidentally use Google's app store for apps I need because the rest of the world uses them. GrapheneOS rocks.
Borrowed time. I hope not, but that's the prevailing feeling.
Happened to me. Stopped working on GrapheneOS because of some goddamn check they make, but still runs on an outdated /e/OS signed with the Google test keys (i.e. without a proper secure boot).
The real fight is to prevent companies (like those banks) to do that kind of shit. And to force manufacturers into allowing us to install alternative systems, instead of preventing unlocking/relocking of the bootloader for instance).
Yeah, and legislation would be needed here but that's just not going to happen. With the GrapheneOS Motorola partnership (only a Lenovo subsidiary but its something) and hopefully more with other manufacturers, this might turn the tide, but its a long shot.
If that happens you could buy a cheap Android like a Moto G for that indispensable banking app and keep using your GrapheneOS device for everything else. Not ideal, but many of us have old devices lying around that can be used for that.
I've been using it for a bit over a year. Installed in a few minutes thanks to WebUSB. A bit of research needed to set the right permissions on Google Play Services.
After that? I only had one application fail due to Graphene's memory allocator. No weird bugs, no need to restart like some siblings are commenting. As close to the "Graphene just works" as it could be.
However, I'm not heavy into Google's ecosystem. Google Pay will not work but I'm not a user, some Google features won't tell you why they don't work but I'm not using them either (Quick Share for instance), none of my apps require the highest Play Integrity level. Maybe the person who say this are a specific type of person where use-cases don't overlap with what breaks on Graphene.
The interaction of secondary users with RCS is borked to all hell. It just plain doesn't work.
Firefox + stock keyboard stopped properly working three days ago, it's back to normal now. No idea what that was about. Restarting was the only way I found to get things working again during that period.
While on the stock Android keyboard, it is clear that the Google one is much better at correcting my taps than the stock one. My typo count has gone up significantly.
Every several weeks the mobile connectivity stops working and nothing short of a restart will get it working again. This might be a bad interaction of the very weird way Google Fi works with a secondary user account.
I've encountered one case of the phone shutting itself off to install an update overnight and not turning on, making me miss my morning alarm.
In the US, there's no way to side step the lack of tap to pay.
Getting apps to work with Android Auto requires some finessing.
These are the things I've encountered in the last 2 months of using Graphene.
Aside from all of that, I really like everything else about the OS. As it stands, it does lacks polish when straying outside of the common path. Not using a secondary account, nor Google Fi on an eSIM, and using the stock browser would likely improve my experience significantly.
I haven't encountered an app that wouldn't work yet (but have installed play services as I do want to use Android Auto).
I would still recommend Grapheme for normal-ish users, as long as you don't go "paranoid mode" with secondary accounts and skipping play services or don't want to use the phone for tons of things beyond phone calls and web browsing. The base experience is that much calmer than stock Android on Pixel.
Thanks for writing all this, this really shows how the failures you encountered don't overlap with my use of the phone.
I don't use RCS and Android Auto.
I have HeliBoard to replace Stock/Google Keyboard. It is way ahead the stock keyboard experience but far behind Google Keyboard's, especially when writing in two languages.
Tap-to-pay works with my bank apps. But that means I can only use one card unlike with GPay.
I rarely use second account as the latency to switch from one account to the other is a pain. I only have a secondary sending notifications to the first one.
I don't let the phone auto-reboot for installs, I let it install automatically and click reboot when I want it to install.
I am on a physical SIM / different carrier and never encountered network issues so I can't comment on that one.
How many apps do you have that don't run there? Would you be willing to share them? I have been using GrapheneOS for a couple years and almost everything works seamlessly (except when e.g. a bank decides to ban GrapheneOS).
I think the real issue here is hardware attestation. GrapheneOS will not protect you.
I will believe the GrapheneOS-Motorola project is a thing when I receive the phone.
Google hates real competition. They blasted out Chrome when Firefox was really taking off and normies were discovering adblocking. Chrome allowed adblocking as a honeypot until everybody was safely in their garden.
The goal in this for Google is to support digital ID. Every totalitarian goal currently being employed requires a digital ID and phones are how they want citizens to access their digital ID (the actual digital ID is created, owned, and managed by the regime, though they will outsource). However, this requires a phone they completely control. Google doesn't care about GrapheneOS or Agoristic users and will lock them out without even thinking twice about it.
Assuming that this Graphene partnership ends up working out, this is probably what I will end up doing once my current iPhone dies. I like my iPhone 13 Pro Max, it's a good phone and I don't really have a desire to get rid of it, but eventually it will break, or get stolen, or in some other way become unusable, and as such it will need to be replaced.
I really hated my Pixel 7 Pro, but I think that was bad hardware and not Android's fault, and since buying my iPhone 13 I have bought my Thinkpad and have been unbelievably impressed with Lenovo hardware (especially since the last Android phone that I bought that I actually liked was my Moto X3).
It would be great if Graphene ends up getting support from at least one first party, because at that point I think there's at least a chance it won't screw with banking apps and the like.
That's a great attitude until slowly but surely 90% of apps used in day to day life won't function for you: banking, dating, social media, e-commerce, communication/messaging etc slowly freeze you out.
A hidden benefit is having to decide now whether you actually need these things.
Messaging apps will continue working.
Banking apps made by reasonable companies will also. In days of banking being competitive and rather open with many providers offering good value, it's so easy to switch providers. Granted I am relatively poor and keep my banking simple, but I doubt card providers want to increase friction either.
After Revolut started requiring >basic integrity it took me appx 1 day to switch to n26 and nothing of value was lost.
Not being able to use socialmedia, e-commerce, and dating apps sounds great.
In many countries it's already impossible to use just the web for banking. They either make you install rootkits on your computer or move you to their mobile apps
Wow, that sounds awful. You say country, which makes me wonder—is this the result of a popular type of law or something? I can’t imagine every bank in a country deciding to make that same move. But I live in a large country with lots of banks so I’m sure I have a very biased point of view.
> I can’t imagine every bank in a country deciding to make that same move.
Many countries have only three or four full banks (the kind that can give you a Visa or Mastercard bank card, let you send and receive transfers, etc.), and all of them are making the same moves.
You should care because the install base could reduce drastically. Reducing the amount of Devs and contributions to the FOSS scene. This will degrade your experience
> I don't care, I run Graphene, and my phone is definitely mine.
It helps, but your modems are still closed chipsets you have no ability to control constantly in communication with and controlled by third parties who can execute code on your hardware at any time without your notice or consent.
That's the real fight. We should fight to make this illegal. It should be mandatory to provide the technical ability to install an alternative OS on a computer, period.
There are many ways Google could prevent third parties from using Android code, and the code of Android components (e.g., Google Play), to make varient OSes. Without Android support and compatibility, it would be very tough going for GrapheneOS.
They already are slowing the publishing of AOSP (or something like that).
It's open source [1], and they're pretty transparent about everything. You can ask the devs anything, and they will probably give you a really useful and informative answer. They have extensive documentation, and they're pretty open, even about stuff like their servers [2], configurations [3], everything.
Being a Graphene user is fine and all, but if this continues it will have a chilling effect on OSS Android development. And that will still effect you.
I think of my iPhone as a phone plus a mobile browser plus a biometric device. It has a lot of memory and a lot of compute power but that is just because all the crap sites and apps out there, unnecessary animations, etc. One could also claim that a phone is a mobile gaming device, although that is not my thing.
Biometrics is the feature that confers all the power to Apple and Google. All sorts of shady things can be done in the name of security and privacy.
The internet would be a much better place if browsing and biometrics were done in different devices.
This is a bit related, but not precisely on top of the major topic we are discussing, but I'll say it anyway: I just got a brand new Samsung A56 for my personal use, and I just found out, like a minute ago, that I can't set a maximum battery charge (say 85%) without internet. It's asking me to turn on the WiFi. This makes no sense whatsoever. If I had to guess it's because Samsung wants to keep a profile of my battery settings and they need that telemetry, but not allowing me to set the bloody thing without internet is insane.
Another thing that happened yesterday when I was setting up the phone was the mandatory need of an internet connection, otherwise the phone would simply not allow me to move on with the setup.
I'm this fucking close to sell this thing and try my luck with a Chinese smartphone, which I'm pretty sure is not going to toss that shit on my face. (I had a Chinese one and a Galaxy S20 FE before, both on different Android versions, 10 and 11 iirc that wouldn't block me like that)
I don't know if that is sarcasm, but a chair I buy is mine to do whatever I want with it. Same goes for clothes, a mattress, paint, or any other non-software enabled physical item. Why does having software/hardware make a difference?
That scene is dying a boiling-frog death. The newest OS that is fully jailbreakable on a sufficiently-modern arm64e device is 16.5.1 (go back a few models to the iPhone X and the current Dopamine beta works up to 16.7.15). There is also a "semi-jailbreak" called nathanlr, which is less full featured and works up to iOS 17.0 on iPhone 15 and prior. There's also TrollStore which isn't a jailbreak, but allows unlimited sideloading with arbitrary entitlements. This tool only functions on the following versions of iOS: 14.0 beta 2 - 16.6.1, 16.7 RC (20H18), 17.0
These OS versions are getting long in the tooth, and apps are already starting to drop support for them.
Because capitalists extend control wherever they can to maximize profitability.
If you want decisions that corporations make to be aligned with the desires of their users, you should be advocating for software/hardware built by consumer cooperatives.
The author as well as commenters in this thread are claiming that people choose Android over iOS or vice versa
One could argue this is false dichotomy
These people are actually choosing a particular form factor with particular specifications that, more or less, only runs corporate mobile OS^1 instead of form factors that run non-corporate OS
1. Or some derivative of one that relies on the corporate distributor and replicates the tethering to a third party, e.g., "phoning home" to the OS distributor, "automatic updates" (remote code execution), etc.
There are other form factors of computers that can run non-corporate OS, where "phone home" and RCE code does not exist or, if necessary, any undesired code can be easily removed by concerned users
In sum, one could argue that with respect to control, privacy, etc. (a) choosing to use one corporate mobile OS over another is not a meaningful "choice" when compared with (b) choosing to use a non-corporate, open source, "compilable by the user" OS instead of a "locked down" corporate mobile OS
This choice can be made on a case-by-case basis depending on what computing problem the user is trying solve. With respect to anyone who seeks to use their "phone" as a general purpose computer to solve every computing problem, one could argue the "choice" of one corporate mobile OS over another is not meaningful with respect to user control, privacy, etc.
Instead "tech journalists", "tech blogs" and online commenters prefer to argue over which is the "better" corporate mobile OS. The truth is, with respect to control, privacy, etc., they all suck
It's common today to own multiple computers. Not everyone uses a mobile phone for banking transactions. For those that do, nothing prevents them from using different computers for non-banking uses. Personally, I don't use banking apps and if I did I would not want one on the same computer that I use for non-commercial purposes, for example, reading HN stories
Right on the nose. And to make that problem worse we've integrated a fair share of our lives into these devices, for which there is only 2 terrible choices. I can't tell you how many friends have expressed to me that they'd love to try GrapheneOS or get out of the mobile ecosystem entirely, but all of them use mobile apps for banking which effectively locks them in. It's basically the devil's bargain because we've added so much ease of use functionality to our day to day lives through these devices. In exchange Google is now showing us it was never ours to begin with.
I agree with your post however further info on one point:
> but all of them use mobile apps for banking which effectively locks them in
Many banking apps work fine with GOS. But given banking and money is such an important part of our lives it is easy to see why people might be hesitant.
It doesn't guarantee future compatibility.... but linked below is a GOS [banking app] status list, crowdsourced info by country.
This change has served me well! I have been a Mac OS X users for years who used an android phone. As soon as google announced their impending walled garden status, I went out and bought into the ios eco system. I have really been enjoying my iphone, ipad, and apple watch.
You see, the only value that Android really offered me was the ability to run my own code on my own device. Since they are taking that away that just makes it a crappier shadow of the vastly superior apple experience. And, as it turns out, ios is less restrictive than it was 18 years ago when I left them for Android!
Even after Google puts this crap in place, you can still uplodad your own apps to your own Android devices, using ADB. Doing the same for iOS, using Xcode, costs you USD 100 or more (depending on country) per year.
I'm in no way defending Google here, just pointing out you're going from bad to worse and think it's a good thing.
I haven't seen new data from celbrite in awhile, but I believe that grapheneos was the only truly secure phone from it for both bfu and afu as of a couple years ago.
Apple lost my confidence after they removed Advanced Device Encryption for British users (plus implemented age verification for them).
iPhones with Lockdown Mode enabled have definitely been exploited which is confirmed by leaked documents and statements from commercial exploit vendors. Lockdown Mode primarily reduces attack surface in Safari and from Apple services. It does very little to protect against other attack vectors such as messaging apps or physical data extraction.
You're thinking of Apple saying they haven't detected a case of a device with Lockdown Mode exploited in the wild themselves. Extremely few devices use Lockdown Mode and Apple has very little insight into successful exploits so there isn't much opportunity for them to detect it in the first place. Lockdown Mode bundles everything together and has very inconvenient changes many people won't accept. That greatly reduces usage even by people fully aware of it who want a lot of what it provides. For example, there's
Apple has said they haven't seen a case of a device with Lockdown Mode being exploited which is extremely misleading. Apple doesn't have that much visibility into devices being exploited and would mostly seen failed attempts. All of the Lockdown Mode functionality being bundled together contributes to it barely being used. There's no opt-out system for most of it beyond disabling it as a whole. Only a subset of the Safari restrictions can be partially disabled per-app and per-site which doesn't fully restore web compatibility. It's more that hardly anyone is using it and that Apple doesn't have much insight into apps and the OS being exploited successfully in the first place. Lockdown Mode is definitely useful but people should read about what it actually does and compare that to how devices get exploited. Apple's memory corruption exploit protections aren't tied to Lockdown Mode.
How is then law enforcement getting what they need from people's iphones? Because I understand they do, in some way. And I'm not asking about forcing people to hand over pin or fingerprints, but just by themselves.
Lockdown Mode is focused on reducing the attack surface from Safari including the WebView and Apple services including iMessage/FaceTime. It does nearly nothing to protect against non-browser/non-messaging attack vectors in the OS or other apps. It's up to app developers to implement similar restricted modes and also baseline exploit protections. App developers need to explicitly opt-in to using the standard exploit protections used in many parts of the OS and Apple discourages doing it:
iPhone security is a myth. This is because you can't scan iPhone for threats, so Apple can pretend they don't happen. iOS is probably the least secure platform there is thanks to the security by obscurity approach by Apple.
You can use iPhone being blissfully unaware it has malware on it even in Lockdown mode (which is essentially cope mechanism and Apple way of saying "we care about security, trust us bro").
Can I plug iphone via usbc and access photos and videos directly and rest of the filesystem directly? Thats my flow, I am not buying a phone which has this artificially disabled 'for my own good', while being unix under the bonnet. Insult to my intelligence and all that.
You really think Apple doesn't gather data on what you do on your devices? This notion that Android == spyware is so old and boring but HN just loves Apple.
I'm sure they do collect data but not to the point that they hamper functionality. They still focus first and foremost on usability, functionality whereas Google focus on collecting data, serving ads and then on functionality.
But yeah, there is no doubt in my mind that they both collect as much as they can.
Google gets nearly all of its revenue from targeted advertising, and Apple does not. Apple has an incentive to restrict or completely deny third-party data collection, because they’ve made privacy a major part of their brand marketing and there is major reputational risk to Apple for being caught lying about this. Apple’s “Ask App Not To Track” feature made such a measurable dent in the revenue of various surveillance tech companies that they complained about it, loudly, including Meta paying for a full-page ad in the New York Times about it.
There are multiple objective reasons to believe that Apple is a more trustworthy actor here than other companies, including vulgar capitalistic reasons.
You can just say “pfft, wow, you really believe that?”, I guess, but if that’s your position there’s no reason to argue about this with you.
Apple's ad revenue is growing massively past few years, projected to be 13 billion revenue stream next year. Where do you think those ads are ending up, and do you really believe they are non-targeted? So while your statements are still somewhat valid, not that much and not for that long.
Also, for anybody from outside of US, its US 3-letter agencies that pose biggest actual security risk since US laws treat us as sub-humans. Apple is as translucent to those as Android. But I get it, its still much easier to make PR campaign based on security for Apple than Android.
While not equivalent to a true iOS app, PWA is a decent option that allows you to circumvent the app store restrictions. If you are trying to build apps primarily for yourself, it's a decent option.
Actually I have been tinkering with PWA as a way to remake some of my toy apps. Though a lot of the automations I made for Android can be replicated through Apple’s Shortcuts app.
The biggest loss for me was Termux. I had lots of scripts and such that I ran, plus just having a Linux environment in my pocket was nice. Luckily I found ish which gives me alpine Linux on top of a virtual x86 machine as provided by a JITC layer. I can host PWA apps out of that environment for local use. Of course I can also ssh to my unix like machines from there too.
I am starting to tinker with swift a bit more too. As with google, I could buy a dev key to deploy my own apps only this way I have all the window dressing and end to end encryption on cloud storage.
Doesn’t that require you to host it and have it available on the open web, though? Is there a host that allows you to, for free, not only HTML/CSS/JS but also access to arbitrary tools and bespoke scripts on the backend?
For free? No, but if you built a native app that needed a backend, you'd still need to host the backend somewhere too. I host my own web apps from a cheap mini pc at home and access them over tailscale for personal use.
I'm pretty sure that if you build your PWA in a way it works offline through caching (which is easy if it's just a static website), you could host/serve it temporarily and just install it once.
As a lark, I built a set of personal productivity apps that are delivered as standalone local webpages. Works surprisingly well on Android, haven't tested on iOS.
I would like to mention that although I’m aware of the limitations, I think it is worth designing and advocating for web app standards that could even at some point become a viable competitor to native apps, especially for apps that really don’t need to be native/wrapped apps in the first place since most are CRUDs anyways.
Maybe this will be a catalyst towards further evolution of the web app as Android devs want to carve out some freedom from the world domination corporate shadow government walled gardens.
You're not wrong, but it will always be the case that the web platform lags native. There will always be stuff you can't do without a native client. The proportion of apps that it's viable to run as a PWA will probably increase over time, but the platforms have both the ability and incentive to stay out ahead.
Most apps can be a PWA nowadays. A Hetzner VPS costs roughly the same as the Apple dev membership. Saying this as a native iOS dev since iOS 4. For your average pretty json printer you don’t need to go native.
Offline PWA sites are very limited on iOS. If you force close Safari, look at your phone funny, or don’t visit the site regularly, the cache is cleared and you are stuck at a loading screen until you have internet again.
That’s what forced me to finally bite the bullet and pay Apple yearly so I could develop an app for my friends and I to use. Would have much rather kept it as a PWA.
I remember running kali linux once on my phone with (termux+vnc) and a vnc viewer app watching some random youtube videos a few years back
So I feel like, Something like this was/is possible but its immensely hard for something like this being used especially when a desktop os on a phone is so bad ergonomically speaking unless you have a keyboard mouse connected
A better option iirc is to use something like kivy[0] directly with termux, not sure if java might have direct options too or not.
You aren't even limited to android apps. You can install termux and write and compile your own code to run from there or to copy and run anywhere else.
Sorry, even as a developer, "but, you can use ADB" is a big big copout.
What's the next step when ADB requires some hoops to enable? Will we say that but the eMMC has an unencrypted EXT4 partition, we can just desolder and write into it?
As a dev, i'd say having to use adb is a minor inconvenience.
Still unacceptable, a better option would be to use something like lineage or some other aosp distro without the google services (hoping that nothing makes you dependent on them).
This still doesn't address the vast majority of people though (and that's what I'm concerned about the most).
What we need now is:
- short term, work on pushing apps not to depend on the google services so phones preinstalled with something like /e/ become a viable option for most people. Push our public services to stop mandating Google and Apple OSes for random stuff.
- longer term, work on making alternatives to Android and iOS viable options for most people (stability, usability and availability of services people use). The best candidate for that today is Linux mobile.
Breaking network effect around proprietary services is one of the strategies towards this.
Another one is reducing our reliance on computers (of any shape) altogether, maybe.
Technically not but the devil is in the details. Having to reinstall the app every 7 days and a limit of one app doesn’t even pass the bare minimum.
Jolla has a prelaunch campaign, decent phones for 200€. I might just as well grab one. Sick of having a phone which is more expensive than my laptop but I can barely use.
Wait, I can download and run iOS on my own hardware? Not that I have tried, but I always thought Apples whole schtick was you were only allowed to run their software on their latest X revisions of their hardware?
Isn't keeping ADB enabled (most people who do this don't enable it and then promptly disable it) a huge security problem? ADB enabled means an adversary can completely own your device and "back it up" by simply plugging it in.
This is much worse than nagging about "untrusted sources".
Not only is it TOFU but that comment is doubly wrong because you can't really back up much other than the bulk storage directory without adb root (which requires a custom build, which obviates the issue to begin with).
Apple has the same thing, but for some reason added Developer Mode which you must enter on the iPhone first. It’s quite involved, with a restart and 3 confirmation dialogs. That had me wondering why they are suddenly so cautious around this.
>ADB enabled means an adversary can completely own your device and "back it up" by simply plugging it in.
each adb host has to be individually white-listed by an unlocked device. also the current behavior is that it auto forgets any white listed host that hasn't connected within 7 days.
Here is a table I just made (edit: changed to list as HN wraps code blocks now), of iOS vs Android (now) vs Android (after Sep 2026 or 2027 or whenever these announced changes take effect):
•1. Where most users can install software from:
↠↠ iOS: official store (App Store) + (in EU) other stores
↠↠ Android (now): official store (Play Store), other stores (e.g. F-Droid), arbitrary APKs
↠↠ Android (after changes): official store (Play Store), other stores (e.g. F-Droid), arbitrary APKs
•3. Installing your own apps on your own phone, without becoming a registered developer:
↠↠ iOS: using XCode: need to reinstall every 7 days.
↠↠ Android (now): using ADB
↠↠ Android (after changes): using ADB
The second row (•2) is what is changing in Android. I think "the ability to run my own code on my own device", narrowly speaking, is closest to the third row, which is not changing.
Android does indeed still look better.
But, I would not consider having to send a copy of my government ID to Google, or having them be able to block apps when so ordered by government, to be acceptable.
Yeah but the situation used to be you don't need to jump through flaming hoops on android and you do need to jump through flaming hoops on ios for installing. Now it's you have to jump through X flaming hoops on android and X+Y on ios for installing. If I'm not going to jump through flaming hoops then I'm not installing so it doesn't matter what Y is in the equation and I'm not taking into account installing when comparing those devices, which mean ios might be a better proposition.
Alternatively if the difficulty of moving from 0->X is not negligible but moving from X->X+Y is then I may still be installing but I'm not considering the Y in the comparison then either. i.e. If I have to show my id to google once and apple twice it's the initial showing that is the turn off, or if it's the action of getting my credit card out in the 1st place rather than the cost difference that concerns me.
Comment about point 2:
As a CEO who recently tried to make personal Android and iOS Dev accounts for my hobby apps on my +20 year old Google and Apple accounts, let me just say that the processes are alot more complicated to apply than is pointed out here.
The key difference being that when I needed help I called Apple Support who transfered me once to their EU Developer support who, while I talked to him, setup and approved my Dev account.
While my Google account still is in pending limbo with their new verification system with no support to contact... I have since giving up getting access after multiple tries.
So Google changes do hit alot harder than the summery makes it seem.
As if most android maker phones don't already fully own your device - preventing you from unlocking of bootloader and installing an OS that actually doesnt enforce the restriction google is introducing in their flavour of android.
To pretend that with this change android becomes exactly like iOS is... ridiculous? I can pick any 10yo old android phone from my drawer and develop for it, no problem and without asking for permissions. And if I'm already this motivated I'm certainly motivated enough to wait 24hs on future (more locked down) devices.
Do you think people who download NewPipe and alike - to circumvent ads and enable premium features - would think twice because they need to wait 24hs? Will NewPipe devs stop developing (anonymously) because of a small fraction of users who refuse to (or won't) go through unlocking steps?
Show me all these "rebel" apps on iOS ecosystem that can be easily distributed on any channel: fdroid, github, telegram groups, etc.
But sure, if you thinking moving to iOS is the same, sounds like you never really made use of any of the freedoms android used to and will continue to provide
I hear what you're saying, especially around just moving to iOS not being a better argument. However with
> And if I'm already this motivated I'm certainly motivated enough to wait 24hs on future (more locked down) devices.
But I don't think that's the point. It's a continual erosion of people's ability to use hardware _they own_ in ways _they want_ under the guise of 'security' - which to be fair google does fuck all to actually prevent malicious, scammy and misleading apps from appearing on their play store.
Like, why make it harder _at all_? I develop Android apps for a company that is used only internally. I don't want to have to release apps to the play store so that they have to go through a bs review period before I can get them out the door users. Currently I have a <10m turn around from starting the build to having an app in user's hands, ready to go... Every other time we've had to use the play store it's 2+ days, and they don't test or verify anything meaningful.
I recognize my experience isn't universal, but I'm pretty opposed to changes like this. I'm not American so I don't really have underlying rhetoric around freedom etc, but this is an impingement and part of continuing anti-consumer trend. Google's not the only one, but certainly the one under the spotlight here.
> It's a continual erosion of people's ability to use hardware _they own_ in ways _they want_ under the guise of 'security' - which to be fair google does fuck all to actually prevent malicious, scammy and misleading apps from appearing on their play store.
A lot of people don't seem to understand this and point out that Android is still more open and free than iOS, but iOS has never been about openness and freedom. People believed in Android, and in Google. Now they either see Google betraying them (once again) or only see the Android vs iOS comparison, forgetting about the implications about autonomy, agency and about the future of Android. Many people don't care which actors control their digital lives and what motivations they have. People should be made aware that Google is on their side and that they have shown many times that they have no honor.
I wonder why. The last time I considered believing in Android was in 2008 when I was choosing between getting an Android phone or Openmoko phone. Went with the latter and never regretted, as Android quickly turned out to be a disappointment. This is just the continuation of the slow crawl they've been on since 20 years ago and it's been really obvious that it's going to happen. The answer is to reject Android just like iOS, not to keep hoping that inevitable isn't going to happen.
It's the slippery slope that's the issue, 24hrs is just the first iteration of the restriction. After couple of iteration of restrictions, they could force everyone to have govt-id approved by goog to install any app.
I will do the same if they lock down Android. If I must be in a walled garden, then I'm going to choose the better kept garden, and it sure as hell isn't Google's. There is absolutely zero reason to tolerate the shittiness of Android if they take away the relative freedom it gives us. GrapheneOS is the last hope of the Android ecosystem, and if Google keeps locking things down that's not going to last either.
I still remember how Google execs were using the word "open" almost as a comma. Android was Open, Google was Open, this was so different from the Closed Apple World. Everything would be Open!
I hope we will remember this lesson and learn from it. Calling something "open" doesn't make it so, and anything owned by a large corporation will eventually succumb to the direction taken by the corporation. And large corporations have goals where you, the user, are not a consideration, you are just a part of their money-making machinery.
I can see the alure of having a very secure mobile device and can understand why you personally wouldn't see a reason to use anything else.
But Graphene requires too much fidling to get spouse approval.
/e/ might not be as secure as GrapheneOS but it is at least as secure as everything else. Plus it actively helps you preserve your privacy and use self hosted services.
At the end of the cycle of a Pixel model, they are heavily discounted. So much that it's probably close to hardware + development cost. Google probably expects to make a profit from Google One subscriptions, Play purchases, and ads.
By installing GrapheneOS, you are giving them nothing.
they're working on it. GrapheneOS has serious plans to get a phone made for them. even more serious now that Google has become openly hostile to their project by no longer publishing the Pixel device tree when new releases come out.
You get a device that still runs proprietary Google blobs in privileged processes (for Play Integrity), talks a lot with Google, gives certain Google applications (like Google Maps) higher privileges than normal Android apps (you can find the signing keys of apps that get elevated privileges in the source code of the /e/OS microG fork), uploads your speech to OpenAI for speech to text, uses a shady middleman (which they do not want to reveal the owner of) for installing F-Droid apps [1], and is hopelessly behind on Linux kernel versions, firmware blobs, and Android security patches (remember that Android Security Bulletins only have backports of high/critical patches).
I wouldn't recommend anyone to use /e/OS. Either they are very incompetent or they are very shady.
That link you shared in your other comment actually counters your "runs google blobs" argument.
Speech to text is afaik completely anonymized and if you care that much, it actually is possible to just not use it, rip it out or even replace it with something that runs locally in your home.
> hopelessly behind on Linux kernel versions
Can you substantiate that? Given that many OEMs still run linux 4 and 5 in their Flagship ROMs today, I'd like to see how open source does so much worse.
If there's one thing I've learned about the custom Android community (and to a lesser extent, the Android community) it's that "it actually works" isn't really important or convincing to them.
Maybe you're just used to your flavors of jank so you don't see it? Your goal is to get off windows, but I've had only Linux on my home computers for ~10 years and it's been working great the whole time. Literally nothing I can think of to complain about.
It's been a few years since I had to use OSX for work, but last I used it, you couldn't maximize windows without a 1+ second animation playing when you cmd+tabbed, which made maximizing completely useless. Docker was also super slow. There's no package manager and the usual recommendation (brew) for a third party one is trash that will update programs you didn't ask it to when you're installing something else. IIRC external monitors are completely unusable from blurry text.
I used a windows laptop recently for a year or so for work. Absolute jank. Sleep was just broken. Like wouldn't sleep/spin down the fan with the lid closed unless I unplugged it. Often completely frozen requiring hard reboots when opening the lid. Leaving it "sleeping" for an extended period would still heavily drain the battery. WSL barely works. For some reason I have to care whether things are in my Windows or Linux home directory. Wrong one and git commands take seconds. I'd get environment mismatches where the terminal in VSCode would fail to run commands that run in a normal CLI, etc. DNS would break inside WSL because it wouldn't propagate config from DHCP. UI is just slow to respond to anything. If you start typing in the start menu search (e.g. "shut down" or "power off"), the menu replaces itself with a different one, and you can't find the power options until you close and reopen the menu.
>Maybe you're just used to your flavors of jank so you don't see it?
That's a throwaway line, everyone is used to their own flavors of jank, even on Linux.
>Your goal is to get off windows, but I've had only Linux on my home computers for ~10 years and it's been working great the whole time, Literally nothing I can think of to complain about.
I think you're trying to read too much into a comment and trying to poke holes...I don't have any Windows, if that wasn't clear. Since we're flexing about experience...I've been doing this since RH 7.2 came in the back of a book 20+ years ago and deploying production Linux services for about the same at a large scale but whatever.
Everything has its flavor of jank, and for most people, Linux is a flavor of jank just barely too far over the horizon still. But, once again, far better than what it ever was 20 years ago, and has the potential to pass Windows at least here soon. But, one of the biggest hurdles especially for adoption is, well, the community, 90% of which think they're one step away from being Linus simply because they installed Arch following a tutorial, and they treat new users the same way for no good reason as they tell the same new users "it's Easy!"
You must be one of the luckier Linux users I guess. I have heard of them, but I've had plenty of convos where once you actually dig into things it's usually not as truthful and playing to the crowd on an internet forum _about Linux_ for confirmation.
>It's been a few years since I had to use OSX for work, but last I used it, you couldn't maximize windows without a 1+ second animation playing when you cmd+tabbed
I use it every day for work, for heavy eng work. Let's be honest, yes there's an animation delay to some degree, but this is trafficking a bit in hyperbole here. GNOME has basically the same behavior for many aspects including switching workspaces by default...which can be turned off in both. The Cinnamon or KDE default experience is better in this regard.
>Docker was also super slow
Only issue I've had with Docker on a Mac with speed is when I'm trying to use some hefty x64 images on ARM macOS (I still have a last model i7 MBA for fun too), which is expected, same with VMs. I've run some pretty gnarly full stack apps, some that included Java backends that needed up to 8gb because reasons, without issue as long as I built an ARM image.
>There's no package manager and the usual recommendation (brew) for a third party one is trash that will update programs you didn't ask it to when you're installing something else.
It behaves roughly the same on macOS as it does on Linux, IME. If I'm not explicit on dnf/apt, I get more updates than just what I wanted too. But maybe I'm missing something. It's how I manage all my tooling on the work env and gives me very few issues save usually for only the occasional connection issue which is always attributed to work VPN nonsense.
>IIRC external monitors are completely unusable from blurry text.
Even on a Mac? The ecosystem is designed for professional graphics use, never had an issue there even back to CRT days heavily using all the Adobe suite versions, and even with non-Apple displays. Every Linux setup I've ever used, including this one is janky with external monitors, let alone dual. Even the "Easiest distro in the world" (Mint) according to most Linux nerds is problematic to say the least in trying to use the screen res/layout settings.
>I used a windows laptop recently for a year or so for work. Absolute jank. Sleep was just broken. Like wouldn't sleep/spin down the fan with the lid closed unless I unplugged it. Often completely frozen requiring hard reboots when opening the lid.
A - agreed, I don't work anywhere which requires Windows, because for all my devtooling, it's all tied into a macOS ecosystem, yes, with homebrew for now. Been that way for almost a decade now. Ideally, one should also do a lot in a build container for 1:1 matching so your CI jobs run the same env/toolset/versions. It's better for real dev work and way more stable in a way that won't require you to become a support headache for the company either.
B - what you are describing is a hardware issue and attributing it to Windows. I had the same issue on a B550 series desktop mobo, went to Linux, same exact behavior. This is not an OS issue.
>Leaving it "sleeping" for an extended period would still heavily drain the battery.
To my mind, non-mac laptops are garbage for battery life, everyone knows this, and yeah if it wasn't sleeping for real it's gonna eat up resources. This is more a hardware issue than anything, not the OS layer. Put Linux on it and I could almost guarantee you would have had similar issues, I've dealt with this like I said w/ the mobo above.
>WSL barely works. For some reason I have to care whether things are in my Windows or Linux home directory. Wrong one and git commands take seconds. I'd get environment mismatches where the terminal in VSCode would fail to run commands that run in a normal CLI, etc. DNS would break inside WSL because it wouldn't propagate config from DHCP. UI is just slow to respond to anything. If you start typing in the start menu search (e.g. "shut down" or "power off"), the menu replaces itself with a different one, and you can't find the power options until you close and reopen the menu.
Man, I have to wonder....was this not using latest/WSL2 and instead using WSL1? Because there _is_ a massive leap between the two. It's not ideal compared to native on Linux or even mac but still works quite well for many use cases. When the WSL2 upgrade came back when I was forced in a past env to use a Windows laptop, myself and 4 other Devs could run our full stack including Kafka locally without much issue on WSL2 other than producing heat on the laptop b/c of how many services we were running. (About 35 .NET Core microservices at the time, along with redis, Kafka, etc.). Yes, the home pathing was a tad annoying.
>If you start typing in the start menu search (e.g. "shut down" or "power off"), the menu replaces itself with a different one, and you can't find the power options until you close and reopen the menu.
Yeah every OS seems to have issues with their search/launcher tooling, but the Start Menu has been shit for a while now. I've had more issues on Windows than anything else re: manu defaults (once tweaked on like W10 it's fine), but then Linux, and then even macOS...before paring down Spotlight to only search certain things, which made it way better.
shrugs
I think this is one of the challenges of building good software, it's why Apple does what they do. Some experiences on one hardware set are somehow perfect, but they're rare, some are the exact opposite. But a lot comes down to what a user is willing to tolerate, too, and while someone might say it was "Easier on Linux" it's usually just that they're willing to tolerate more terminal madness and odd behaviors than others in their daily driver.
I agree with your sentiment, but I want 100% Linux about a year ago and it's been much better than OSX. Yes, there are downsides - I really miss the iPhone "continuity". But the bugs, gatekeeper, liquid glass, ads in system settings, etc in OSX dwarf the rough edges on Linux desktop.
For non-power users OSX is still a no-brainer, but for a programmer I feel like Apple's left us no alternative.
I used to own a house, I could decorate it the way I wanted. It was hard work, but it was mine!
Then they locked it, so I went to live in a luxury hotel, it's more expensive, I can't decide how I want it and I don't own anything, but it's such a superior experience!
it's not the choice, it's the argument: OP seems to be happy to give up freedom (he or she initially cherished) because everything now is crap anyways, so let's just bathe in shit and celebrate it...
Do you run into issues with apps not supporting it? Things like banking or auth? That is the main complaint I see for alternative phone OSes, and I don't know if that has gotten any better.
I've been dailying GrapheneOS for more than 2 years. I haven't had any issues with any of my bank apps. Although there are apparently some that do block usage on non-google-certified OSs. The only limitation in my use cases pre-GrapheneOS that I've found is not being able to make NFC payments through Google Wallet, but I found a bank in my country whose app implemented NFC payments, and made an account with them to be able to convenintly pay with my phone.
edit: and I'd like to add, GrapheneOS brought me back the joy of using my phone. Since 2018 or so I started to dread my phone (and the internet) more and more. Installing GrapheneOS brought back the joy on using these marvelous computers (and self-hosting brought back the joy of using the internet)
The first is the anti-trust angle. Some subset of bank apps don't work because of attestation and that's a significant barrier to adoption for switching to competitors, so it ought to be an anti-trust violation for the platform to do that.
The second is, you try it and discover that your bank doesn't work. If you want it bad enough you can switch banks, and the fact that it doesn't work is a signal that your bank has a weak security team who is just cargo culting deleterious vendor nonsense without evaluating whether it has any real security value.
(The use case for attestation is completely orthogonal to bank apps because it can't prevent credential stealing from compromised phones running a fake app since the fake app won't require attestation, and it can't prevent attackers from using stolen credentials to transfer funds because once they have the credentials they can just use a normal phone, and that's the case even if the attestation was completely airtight, which it isn't. Meanwhile the devices that can pass attestation are generally more vulnerable because it implies they're running the more-likely-to-be-outdated OS that came with the device rather than a third party upgrade with more recent patches, so they're essentially encouraging their customers to not upgrade their OS. Banks that do this are wearing clown makeup and you have to ask if you trust them with your money.)
GrapheneOS user here, on my only phone, aka my daily.
I love my phone and when I replace it, I will be flashing GrapheneOS again. This is my second phone with it so far, and roughly year 4 or 5.
With that said, it isn't for everyone. I definitely remember some issues upon first install, a learning curve if you want to call it that. I also introduce intentional obstacles in certain "workflows" in my life that dissuade certain usage, like excessive social media use. With that said, I no longer remember what I introduced myself and what was an OS characteristic. I do remember having frustrations with most banking apps IF I didn't log into the play store mirror. Since I'm "hardcore" and am not willing to sign into a Google product on my phone, they just don't work. However I don't think they would be an issue for most people.
If you are on the fence, you can make a backup of your phone, try it out, and if you don't like it, you can reinstall the default Android and restore your backup. I've done it before when I used my previous GrapheneOS phone for store credit for my next phone, and figured they'd want a factory reset default OS on there.
The replies whenever this question is asked remind me of when I used to have a Windows Phone and was trying to convince myself it was the best phone on the market. Yeah, I couldn't use YouTube because Google blocked Microsoft's YouTube app; and I wasn't able to deposit my paychecks because my bank didn't have a Windows Phone app or mobile deposit support on their website; and sure, using Messenger or Snapchat (which was exploding at the time) meant using somebody's reverse-engineered WP version of those apps...
But look at all the information I can get from the Live Tiles! Oh and isn't Cortana neat! A little more self-flagellation for the penitent ones who've traded corporate app stores for daily inconvenience.
Whatever issues I've run into I've been able to work around. I don't use tap-to-pay with the phone at all so that's not an issue. The things I get in return for using GrapheneOS all outweigh any downsides.
My bank detected someone logging in with my password from a GrapheneOS phone and made me change my password and scan my face. That was dumb.
With that out of the way, and the device now seemingly authorized, it still doesn't work, because when I log in, the app restarts. That could be a real compatibility problem.
Yeah, I tried that out last year when this whole debacle was announced for the first time.
I'm not going back to paying without my phone. So yeah, I'm not going to a free platform either.
the choice really is mostly down to Google's Android or iOS - unless you're ready to make sacrifices. If you are... More power to you! I'm not (at this point in my life) right now.
Graphene sounds great in theory. Until you read the device compatibility page and see you're still at the mercy of Google. In order to support graphene you must first pay Google for one of the most expensive android devices on the market. Oh and Google never sold this device in my country so I guess I'm out of luck even if I wanted to do that.
> Until you read the device compatibility page and see you're still at the mercy of Google.
Alternate take: good. I'd rather the GrapheneOS team pick standardized (if limited) hardware configurations to support and then spend their (many multiples less than Google) resources on the platform rather than device compatibility.
The Android OEM diversity mean the time/economics of supporting every phone with a non-Google OS were never going to work, and I'd rather have it working well on a limited number of platforms than poorly on more.
Firmware engineering and patching sucks and delivers little value to the user, because best case (you solved the issue or patched the hardware errata) something basic that a user expects is now working.
Nobody is going to switch to a platform because a phone can now make calls. Even if there are 1000+ human hours in patching some cheap clone LTE chip it uses.
Motorola devices that match the GrapheneOS requirements are coming next year. It's good thing they're not compromising on hardware requirements that would undermine the goals of the project. If there's anyone to blame it's the dismal state of affairs on the hardware security side of my most Android phone manufacturers.
Unfortunately, there is no way to use Google Pay on it. I'm all for trading some convenience for privacy, but not having to carry all my cards is too much of a convenience for me :(
Don't pay taxes. Steal cars, punch Trump, call a black person the N-word ... see how it goes
Paper and pencil offer a far more blank canvas compared to the very specific hardware constraints of a phone, and ecosystem of software limited to the common languages
Software dev and use is, comparatively, heavily constrained and on rails compared to sitting by a tree and imagining
To buy the phone ones agency is coupled to the subset of legitimate options to make money
Same for electricity to charge it, battery replacement, screen repair if it breaks.
For an Android user, iOS offers better privacy (which can change at any time), but it also comes baked in with better support for some open protocols. (SMB on Files, and CalDAV/CardDAV for Calendars/Contacts/Notes integration). This has been the case for years, while aspects of the 'walled garden' have eroded over time.
It's natural that this huge Android regression might be enough for someone to dip their toes into the other side.
No, it might sound smart, but it's incorrect to equivocate. You don't need to "lock in" to Apple's services either. Apple has a meaningfully better track record than Google on privacy in many regards.
(Apple's Terms of Service is also much better, for not having an arbitration clause anywhere except the Apple credit card, with a very easy opt-out flow.)
The iOS app store is like the craigslist personals of online markets. I feel incredibly dirty just going on there. I have to scroll down 3-5 options just to find the exact match for what I searched for, many of the prioritized options being look-alikes that could easily fool people into installing some malware-esque garbage.
I love my 13 mini as a phone, but I don't understand how anyone could compare the two app stores and think iOS comes out on top. At least android has f-droid.
I almost never go to the app store to find an app, but I can understand how that would be really frustrating. Sounds like they need to get serious about curating the app store content.
From my perspective, the walled garden value I get is predominantly in the integrations between my phone, macbook, and watch. And to a lesser extent (because it's a bit buggy at times) the family integrations.
Integrations makes sense, but I'm 100% sold on linux/PCs at this point and I don't care about wearables so my phone is just a phone. Luckily I'm not on the app store much, but if the walled garden is a cesspool already then maybe opening the gates a bit isn't such a bad idea.
It depends where. In Spain people use it for that because iPhones are incredibly expensive here compared to the standard of living. What doesn't help is that the SE/e models are also way more expensive than in the US.
As a result it's mainly rich people and tourists that own them. Most people use budget android phones, the kind that still come with 3,5mm jacks. You still see wired earphones a lot.
I haven't found the need for deeper integration with my laptop beyond what KDE connect is capable of, and my Pixel has a high enough resolution that I can't notice pixels :)
It's probably worth mentioning that as far as i know this change does not affect AOSP phones[1]. I'm currently living with a Kyocera flip-phone[3] for the past few years. I even got F-droid installed, though it turned out to not work all that great on a flip. I wish more people wrote apps for flips. I keep intending to look into writing my own APK if i ever get the chance. As i understand it, it's a bit like The Wild West, though there are places where you can get flip-phone apps[2] like maps, media players, messengers, etc.. i just never seem to have time to look more into this(and i'm a little concerned about getting scammed). I did manage recently to successfully tether my old touch-phone to my flip for a car trip i took, so i could get data to the touch and run maps(i feel somewhat clever to have sidestepped Big Tech on that issue). Hopefully i'll get some time one day to look more into flip-apps.
After switching away from GrapheneOS to iOS after RCS stopped working for me, I can safely say my experience has been the opposite. The camera is the only thing better for me on iOS - everything else is buggier and worse. A few of my favorites:
1. Safari is buggy as hell, and requires installing apps to run things like ad blockers.
2. The settings are ALL over the place and very hard to navigate
3. The gestures are clunky - often have to try a couple times to get one of the settings quick menus to drop down
4. Why is the date not displayed at the top of the screen with the time outside of the lock screen?
5. The pin unlock is horribly broken - I have to slow way down to use it compared to Android.
6. Apple maps is hot garbage. I had to install Google Maps anyway to get decent performance.
7. The handling of audio devices seems intentionally malicious - like if I call someone from my car through car play, it shouldn't send the audio out through the phone earpiece. If a call begins with phone earpiece audio and is underway, it shouldn't switch several seconds in to bluetooth headset half a house.
RCS can be hit or miss on GrapheneOS, but they have made significant progress recently. It requires using Google Messages rather than any other messaging app, and may require enabling an ICC authentication option that is disabled by default. And it may depend on your carrier. RCS is kind of a pain in the butt but the messaging improvements over SMS are substantial which is why I wanted it.
When I first tried last fall I had it working for a few weeks then it stopped entirely delivering messages and I fell back to SMS only. After the recent system updates and enabling the ICC option it has been working well for me.
In the last week or so, multiple people have told me they cannot text me. I found that I was getting a "verification limit exceeded" error (perhaps because of my unusual behavior of usually being at work or at home, both which have known wifi networks, and sending maybe half a dozen texts any day?). I got the error to go away for half a day and they were still unable to message during that time, and now that I have it disabled I still appear as online on RCS (yet still unreachable?) so they still cannot message me lol.
I've been on the other end many times across multiple Android devices across multiple years, being able to send messages to some RCS users, being unable to send messages to other RCS users, not being able to receive messages in group chats entirely comprised of Android users, etc.
SMS/MMS: Handled by carriers, you can send messages to people who are offline and they'll get the messages when they turn their phone back on.
Telegram/FbMessenger/Whatsapp/etc: Handled by individual corporations, you can send messages to people who are offline and they'll get the messages when they turn their their device on.
RCS: Handled by both Google and carriers at the same time for some reason, maybe 80% chance of being able to send a message to somebody who's online, let alone offline.
I'm sure there are multiple reasons it was challenging, but Google and friends have not risen to the occasion at all. Truly a garbage protocol.
I've found that RCS works ok-ish on the Owner user, but doesn't work at all on any other (it appears as an empty message). Moving to the Owner account you can tap to redownload the message and then it appears correctly in all accounts. It's a mess that makes daily driving a secondary account not worth it
SMS is pretty horrible yes but I don't know anyone that uses it anymore. The only ones I get are spam from my phone provider and some MFA systems that are stuck in the past. Oh and the odd shipping notification.
RCS I didn't even bother to set up. I don't want to use yet another system. If people want to reach me they have WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram to choose from.
If you don't want to invest in getting your contacts on Signal, you can try OpenBubbles. It gets iMessage on Android devices and works fine.
I highly recommend switching to GOS, it is wayyy better than iOS UX-wise and obviously better privsec and freedom.
One thing that I had to do when I first got GOS, to get a better experience, was find all the Open Source apps that I needed. Otherwise, it looks rather bland and the apps are mid. Once you find the right apps and launcher, everything works much better.
RCS is proprietary so it only works on GrapheneOS if you have Google's Messages app. At least, that was the case a year ago, but I'm assuming it hasn't changed.
On the bright side, Messages works without linking to a Google account
> Apple maps is hot garbage. I had to install Google Maps anyway to get decent performance
I hear this and wonder how much must be regional. I'm experiencing the opposite. Apple Maps has gotten quite good, while Google Maps seems to just be rotting away. Both do work reasonably well in my home area of the PNW, but Apple Maps is a bit more polished. But in some places, like recently when I was on a business trip in Austin, Google Maps was comically terrible at routing. I get that partly this is probably because Texas has interesting ideas about designing a road network, but still, Apple got it working just fine.
Same. Google Maps quality has gotten noticeably worse these past 2 years for me. It routinely tries to navigate me to making impossible turns or taking weird and sometimes more dangerous routes just to shave off a potential minute. I started using Apple Maps at the advice of a colleague and it’s given better directions. This is all local. I have no baseline comparison for using maps while on trips.
Fine, the whole post was explicitly "my experience" but I think it's a reasonable gripe - why is it not configurable, and why did it take me so long to sift through the impenetrable settings structure to figure out that it wasn't configurable?
Agree and many more. I had an iPhone 15 Pro for about six months last year and one of the most infuriating things was that you can't get to Camera settings from Camera, you have to go out to Settings.
I'm on this path too. Waiting a few more months to see what happens. If they indeed block my 4 apps on my phone (which aren't published anywhere), I will simply move to Apple.
Will your 4 unpublished apps be in your android-alternative apple device?
Android will still have the ability to install non-google-distributed programs. The problem is the ominous momentum, but it is still more open than the apple alternative
I'm not the commenter you replied to, but I'm doing the same math they are and coming up with the same answer.
From my perspective iOS is better than Android in a number of ways but Android always won out overall for me, in large part because of the freedom regarding software. Remove that freedom from the equation, I think the balance tips towards iOS.
For me, Google services are not an option, so my Android experience is sans-Google.
Until September 2025, I'd say iOS had actually gotten better than Android.
CalDAV, CardDAV, and SMB are baked into iOS, whereas these are onerous to set up on Android. These are very very nice protocols, and I use them all daily. (Contacts, Calendars, Notes, Reminders, and Files.)
Apple's developer ecosystem lacks the FOSS devs that make F-Droid so good, but they do have a number of devs who release paid apps with zero tracking, which is very nice. It's often the case an app exists on iOS as a $5 one-time fee with a two-paragraph privacy policy for which one does not exist on Fdroid.
Shortcuts work well enough, homescreen customization is good enough, etc. that a number of the original Android draws are gone. There are a number of points where iOS and Android are equals now.
iCloud's E2EE photo backup is something I reluctantly started using and found to be very nice, after having had de-Googled in 2018. I miss having my photos auto-upload and be available on other devices, and Apple has had iCloud Web for awhile. This is nicer than the options I have on Android.
And while Android's notification-panel tiles have gotten worse over the years (down from six to two controls on the first swipe, this was what alienated me and got me to try iOS), iOS now has a much denser "control center".
The big caveat is the gigantic regression that is iOS 26. The phone is slower, it kills battery, the native apps are constantly crashing, the lockscreen and homescreen often have broken navigation flows, etc. It's a travesty that never should have been released and iOS is easily worse than Android right now. If someone needed a phone today, I couldn't recommend an iPhone, but that might change with iOS 27.
>CalDAV, CardDAV, and SMB are baked into iOS, whereas these are onerous to set up on Android
I can only speak to SMB but it is not hard on Android. I use a longtime third party app so not sure what the state of native support is but it works just fine for me, including over VPN
Its more about the principle for me.I know I can jump through hoops for google but I prefer to say no-thank-you.
The long term fear/plan for google is that they know they days of SAAS and Apps are obsolete. People will just write their own platforms, apps, websites all from scratch using AI, which means the app stores becomes obsolete, which means no more ad revenue from shitty ads and no more control and unfettered tracking of your behaviour. AI will make these guys obsolete, they know it, this is them fighting back.
I used a New+Unlocked+Pixel+X on eBay to find a rough price of the phone.
Most people get scammed by their carrier and pay $25-45 per month just for their wireless subscription, and many more get caught up in the device bundles which gets you the "latest and greatest", at a huge price. So people are paying, per month, what you can pay, per year for a Pixel.
You can use Silent Link to pay by the gigabyte with no expiration date. Most people don't need unlimited—I use a maximum of 5 GB per month, and my average is around 3. At $1.60 per month, that is $60 per YEAR for me.
Swap in https://jmp.chat for another 60 dollars per year for calls/texts and you get a $120/year phone bill which is just $10/month.
I will be moving from US Mobile to Jmp.chat once my plan expires.
You could also use US Mobile for $17/month which is unlimited and is user friendly. They also often have Pixels for a significant discount with no lock-in.
eBay International exists and I've shipped my laptops from the US to Bolivia, Guam, Sweden, and before the war, Russia. You can definitely get a Pixel unless maybe you live in the DRC or the PRK
A Pixel 9a is ~350 Euro here in Europe and it still has better device security (separate secure enclave, MTE, etc.) than pretty much any other phone besides iPhone and other Pixels. Pretty great cameras for the price too. Still supported until 2032 (so presumably also on GrapheneOS).
I get you. I used to buy Nexus devices as well as some of the first Pixels, until at some point the prices shot up to ridiculous levels for a phone and I went with other brands.
Last year though the Pixel 8a was selling for 350€ and I got one. Luckily, given the recent developments. Will be installing GrapheneOS.
I bought an 8a new when it launched for the express purpose of installing GOS. It cost like $450, and will last me most of a decade. If you are using a phone that costs significantly less than that (and I am speaking from personal experience! I had an Obamaphone that I got at a foodbank for many years, as well as a number of crappy used Androids!) your phone storage is so limiting that you are struggling to install more than a few apps.
> If you are using a phone that costs significantly less than that (and I am speaking from personal experience! I had an Obamaphone that I got at a foodbank for many years, as well as a number of crappy used Androids!) your phone storage is so limiting that you are struggling to install more than a few apps.
The only phone I've ever had trouble installing more than a few apps was one with 512MB of storage. If I go check the second result on amazon for android phone it's a solid motorola option, unlocked for $127 and with 128GB. That's more than enough; even some flagships have 128GB.
The "just over $100" range has multiple options with good storage. Below that is a sea of locked/refurbished phones that are also good options in many cases.
Digging deeper I eventually hit a "BLU" brand phone for $50 with only 16GB, and that leaves you with not very much after the OS takes its space. But then you can add $10 to get another 16GB and have more than enough room for apps.
So you have to go really low to have the problem you're describing.
I'm used to fixed partition sizes. The OS eating into user space sounds pretty ugly. And updates to builtin apps since the last OS update eat space, but only so much.
Regardless, since they have a 16GB model I strongly doubt the 32GB model would ever have less than 16GB of usable space.
I've bought Motorola phones that cost less than half of that and still last for 3-5 years and I've been able to install far more than "a few" apps. Having an SD card slot is great for offloading the big storage uses like photos/video.
I have recently made the same move... mostly because it allowed me to stop using my google and microsoft accounts. Moved all personal (and family domain) and business from google workspace / O365 all into fastmail. Bought an iPhone (already worked with macs and an iPad for more than a decade. Not about particular preferences but this setup allows me to only be dependent on one bigcorp. Android still requires a google account, the rest was not necessary but I have above all else made a mental switch to simplify.
I do not feel iOS is particularly better... some things are, some things are not. Yes android was more customizable, and yes the universal back and home buttons are still better than the multi tap and hidden gestures on iOS. But overall some pleasantries such as shared clipboard, seamless headphone switch over, and overall simplification so far, is working very well for me.
I simply need a phone on a major platform, as my job (and life) requires to have certain apps which only run on (non-rooted) Android or iOS phones. And I am tired of fighting and adapting.. so I now just use most of the default apps everywhere, and whatever does or does not work, I take it mostly as-is. For now it seems to allow me to just worry less about it and focus on the things I actually want or need to do .. send email, read message, visit a website, listen to a podcast and not fret about the tiniest of UX details.
I would love to live in a world where I could run around with a customized linux laptop and some sort of privacy respecting phone (e.g. Graphene) but the hurdles are not really worth it to me anymore. Sad in a way, as without counter pressure.. things will not necessarily get better, I know. The 22C3 talk by Rop and Frank I think was depressing, and true.
It's unbelievably useful within its own walled garden. There are lots of instances where commands, tabs, and other pieces of data transfer seamlessly between your phone and computer. You can bring your phone up as a digital version ON your laptop so you can call, text, etc. straight from it while your phone sits in the bedroom charging or whatever. Everything works really, really well. Their walled garden has always been pretty top-tier.
So would you say that the value of Apple products increases as you have more of them (higher than just the linear benefit of more products)? I've used them, but always as one offs.
For example, Ive had a Mac(book? The one that you connect periphery to use) as a work computer at a previous software job, the iPhone because of a girl I dated who wouldn't be with a green bubble man, and iPad also in a previous job, so never together or actually adopted in personal life, so I didn't get sold.
I did this too, but it happened almost 10 years ago when Google started locking down Android in the name of battery life. I saw the writing on the walls and said if Android is going to be just like iOS because we collectively can’t have nice things, then at least I’ll live out that sad reality on better hardware.
This whole website is a scare screen. There's a lot that is not being said on this page, such as the advantages of the new system, and the motivations of the authors of this site.
There's a reasonable discussion to be had about trade-offs here, but this is entirely one sided, in somewhat bad faith in my personal opinion.
Is the Play Store the number one source of scams though? It might be in absolute terms, but Google has said malware off Play is 50x higher, and clearly Google does a huge amount of work to keep scams off Play. It seems logical to have a multi-faceted approach and try to reduce malware distribution elsewhere.
When I search for ChatGPT right now on the Play Store, the first result on my phone is a counterfeit app with a fake logo, I don't think even basic diligence has been done on the play store, it's the far west.
As for the apk, of course not many people distribute legitimately this way ... because it's already too complicated! Even Fortnite couldn't make it work, so if they cannot, how can your average developer do it?
If you want more legitimate apks, the solution is to remove friction and make them easier to install.
Google has been acting in two steps here:
- first make apks too complicated for legitimate developers
- then claim that no legitimate developer use them...
It's fair to question whether the play store is the number one source of scams, but you should also question whether google actually does enough to keep scams off of Play, or is that just a pretense.
If I search for "DeepL" the first hit on the play store is "Preply" whatever that is, only the second one is actually DeepL.
I don't really understand your argument here, isn't Google's announcement also entirely one sided? I also don't see any "discussion" of disadvantages of their solution in their announcements. For example, the "over 50 times more malware" stat is stated without any source at all, same with "Most of your users’ download experience will not change at all" (inb4 I don't care about power users at all). Not to mention stats about scam-by-sideloaded app, anything that would suggest that the proposed solution is going to work.
The point of "keepandroidopen.org", in my understanding, is to be a quick PSA on why the author of the website thinks this is a problem with some call-to-action. It's not supposed to be a place for discussion, it's at best a discussion starter, one of the sides of the discussion to consider. Obviously they present their side, as Google has presented their side.
And anyway, how are users supposed to hold this "reasonable discussion" with a corporation? I know that Google had some sort a feedback form about this, and that they made some changes, but that is not a discussion. I didn't really actually see any "reasonable discussion" being held on this topic ever, anywhere, ever, nor do I really see how it would happen. I don't even really see a good reason for Google to hold such a discussion. It's a decision made by a corporation, about their product, after all.
Could you present your how you see this "reasonable discussion" being had? Where? How?
I agree, and this is the problem with lobbying: everyone has an agenda.
IMHO, this is not a problem: it is possible to disable the check (though it takes some clicks and 24h), and those who care should actually lobby for alternative OSes like GrapheneOS and LineageOS.
My biggest problem is that when I run LineageOS, at least on the phones I tried, it is signed with the Google test keys and the bootloader is not relocked. At the very least, it should be mandatory for manufacturers to allow running an alternative OS with proper secure boot, and it should be illegal for companies to ban OSes that are not signed by Google (through Play Integrity).
I agree. I don't like the idea of Android being locked down, but the conversations around this topic are tipping into disingenuous.
Your phone is still yours, you can still install third party apps, and you can still develop apps without a verification. But now there's a one-off hurdle to install them.
Not ideal, but when we think of the people that it's trying to protect, this feels like a reasonable middle ground.
Exactly. Nuance and good faith is in desperate need here. Google hasn't been perfect here by any stretch, but they are clearly responding to feedback. This side however seems to stick its head in the sand over security, "I wouldn't fall for it therefore it's not a problem" sort of stance, which is just talking cross-purposes. By all means push back on security being a concern, but the numbers don't support this.
You mention nuance and good faith, but on your profile, and on your website, you claim to work on Android at Google. Previously on Google Play. I don't see that mentioned in your comments about this issue, I do think it matters a lot.
> This side however seems to stick its head in the sand over security, "I wouldn't fall for it therefore it's not a problem"
Which is also a total misrepresentation of the arguments made on the website, and made by many people opposing these changes. Again, since you mention good faith and nuance.
> By all means push back on security being a concern,
The website does not seem to push back on security being a concern in general, if I'm reading it right. It does however push back on the idea that changes made by Google will actually increase security of the users.
> but the numbers don't support this.
Can I see these numbers? I would seriously love to.
There is a negative network effect: The opt-out is so complex and time-consuming that it will deter almost all users (even if some on HN say they will do it).
With so few users, many fewer developers will release apps that don't comply with Google's requirements. Then the value of opting out will decline significantly, which will reduce the number of people doing it, which will reduce the number of apps released ...
How do corporate users distribute custom apps on iPhones? Must they distribute them via Apple's store or is there some corporate mode, maybe involving X.509 certs and device management, that enables large-scale professional users to sideload?
It's not about paying Google. People can buy gift cards with cash and do that; that's not the problem, especially not for commercial use. It's everything else that they're imposing or could impose on a whim and whose device it is they're putting restrictions on.
Last I heard, Google doesn't employ law enforcement. I can auth to the people we vote for and any laws they make such as bank KYC against specific criminal activity. Nobody gets scammed via an apk when it's infinitely easier to put up a webpage or socialmedia profile
You know, I'm fine with this (just as long as the opt-in is one-time, not for every install). A device maker needs to balance the interests of many different groups, including nontechnical users subject to scams, and it's pretty self-centered to get self-righteously outraged when things get a little harder for power users, when those changes may save the butt of a lot of other people.
The only thing that gives me pause is this:
> Worse: this flow runs entirely through Google Play Services, not the Android OS. Google can change it, tighten it, or kill it at any time, with no OS update required and no consent needed. And as of today, it hasn't shipped in any beta, preview, or canary build. It exists only as a blog post and some mockups.
I find it quite interesting that peoples talking on a website called "hacker news" find it fine that a company selling you an OS make it harder for you to install app not approved by them, notably so when there is enough scare screens as of now to discourage any too gullible peoples to do so.
What would we think if Microsoft decided all of a sudden to do something similar with Windows? How there is no outrage about this in that community?
Like the boiled crab in the chef's cuisine, we slowly accept the rising temperature around us as totally fine and normal.
> I find it quite interesting that peoples talking on a website called "hacker news" find it fine that a company selling you an OS make it harder for you to install app not approved by them
I'm trying to get outside the myopic software engineer/geek mindset.
> notably so when there is enough scare screens as of now to discourage any too gullible peoples to do so.
Apparently the existing screens are not sufficient, and I buy that. I think the cooling down period is a good idea, because otherwise many people will just do as they're told because they don't understand what they're doing and are too trusting.
> What would we think if Microsoft decided all of a sudden to do something similar with Windows? How there is no outrage about this in that community?
Where is the outrage about nontechnical people getting misled and scammed?
So wait, does this mean that Google will forcefully uninstall the apps I currently have installed?! or disable? will the apps work again once I went through the 24h process?
Their FAQ states that previously installed unverified apps won't be able to install updates which suggests to me that they won't disable or uninstall them. Hopefully someone can confirm.
Is that actually confirmed anywhere? It certainly sounds possible given some of the wording ("At this point, any app installed on a certified device in these regions must be registered by a verified developer.") but it would be nice to get official confirmation.
This keeps coming up and I just want to point out that it's the result of one judge using the book rather than their brain to make a ruling.
Google asked (the appeals judge) why Apple was not a monopoly with the App store. The judge told Google it was because they cannot be anti-competitive if they have no competitors.
On my Android phone's home screen I have 23 apps, 11 of them are my own. If Android prevents me from installing my own apps I will switch to something else.
Unless you move to a linux phone (good luck finding one or daily driving it) your phone options are iPhone.
iOS restricts you to install only up to 3 personally signed apps which need to be resigned every 7 days only if you're in the same network of the computer that signs them. Or you live in europe and you can jump through much worse hoops to install AltStores which also break as soon as you travel outside of europe.
This is a wild misrepresentation of the situation. Saying there is no opt-out is just false, they even provide the information on how users can opt-out. The "mandatory 24 hour cooling-off period" is also misleading, it's easy to bypass the cooling-off period with ADB.
I can't see where one can opt-out of this new behavior and into the existing behavior, only a description of the new behavior's bypass (which is not the same thing at all)
> easy to bypass the cooling-off period with ADB
I don't think this is a reasonable use of the term "easy". I should be able to give my non-technical friend an apk and they can use it right then, with the one "are you very sure" screen.
The concepts don't need to be at odds with each other.
But also, I don't think that "computing freedom" means you get to use other people's computers without consent. Let's be clear here: Google's requirement for ID only applies to apps distributed from their computer. Presuming that you do actually respect computing freedom, I'd guess you'd support them in this.
I think a good compromise is that they could permit you to sideload. Which they are doing.
But also, if you are very concerned about computing freedom you can also vote with your wallet when you purchase a device.
> I don't think that "computing freedom" means you get to use other people's computers without consent
Consent from whom? Consent is already required, why are you discussing this as though consent is not required? Why are you stating it as if people are using other's computers without consent? Right now when I sideload an APK on _my device_, I have to explicitly consent to allowing it to install. And I do not require the author of that APK to have made any deals/interactions with Google. What you mean is Google's consent or a debugger's consent or my consent tomorrow.
So I, as the user, will no longer be able to provide consent alone. I wish that you were right and it was just "no running without consent", but that is today's behavior, and that is being altered.
> I think a good compromise is that they could permit you to sideload. Which they are doing.
They always have, and that was a good compromise. They've now decided you can't sideload until tomorrow unless you break out debugging tools or require the author make special deals with a specific vendor. What exists today is a good compromise, the change is not.
I expect the same from my desktop and mobile devices here.
You mentioned surveillance -- I presumed you were talking about the ID requirement. This only applies if you're using Google's computers to push out your app.
If you sideload... what "surveillance" are you talking about?
> They've now decided you can't sideload until tomorrow
A single 24 hour waiting period, only the first time. Or just use ADB. The point is to prevent false-urgency scams. Honestly even this seems to me to be pretty weak.
Can you think of a single better option that has any efficacy at all?
If they're not surveilling what apps are being sideloaded, why is the bypass managed by google play services?
There are at least 2 better options:
- An option to not install the update which would fuck with my device
- An option to use the OS layer instead of google play services for this fuckery. i disable gplay services the moment I get my hands on a new phone.
>Unfortunately that is the same vector that scammers use to drain people's bank accounts
Is the solution really that no one can use a computer without special permission and inspection of government issued identification? If we wouldn't tolerate this with our desktop/laptop OS, why is it suddenly okay for our mobile computing platforms?
If Microsoft required this to run software in Windows, there would be riots.
Only physical practicalities will prevent this thinking be applied throughoutly: we can't have guardians preventing people from being scammed face to face. But having to identify yourself on a desktop computer and only be allowed to install software vetted
by Microsoft and bunch of governments is readily on the books for the kind of thinking that makes these suggestions.
That's where it inevitably leads to. If people can't be allowed to be responsible for X, next they can't be allowed to be responsible for Y, then Z -- all for their own sake. Google taking some mythical "responsibility" on behalf of their users means the users are left powerless and that is that something Google wants more than just being a "good guy" who protects people from conmen.
It's not like people simply couldn't just limit themselves to installing apps from Google Play already, without these "guardrails". Android currently does make it clear that installing unknown apks from an external source is risky and shouldn't be done unless you really, really know what you're doing. No further technical solutions are required for the problem. You can't fix stupidity with technical means.
If someone is dumb enough to ignore a very explicit warning message, that's their problem. We also don't restrict the sales of kitchen knives just because some people inevitably are going to be dumb enough to hurt themselves with a knife. If they hurt themselves that's their problem, not the problem of more intelligent people.
I will say, an underrated use case for even small, local LLMs is making command line tools drastically more accessible to laypeople
I now know zero people I don't think should use linux, and people I know seems to run quite a gamut of technical know-how compared to most other technical folks I know
Having an LLM directly and autonomously drive command line tools outside of a strict sandbox sounds like a ticking time bomb.
Thinking tokens: "The files I'm trying to read are missing, I need to figure out why. I see the problem, I accidentally ran rm -rf /home/user. Let me run git restore. No that didn't work. Let me try git reset --hard origin/HEAD. That still didn't work. I should inform the user."
Output: "I was unable to complete the task you requested. Restore /home/user and I will try again"
I tend to set people up with a chat interface, which is pretty good for asking for commands or scripts that the user will then copy into their terminal. Most people I've gotten to try linux do pretty well with just a wiki, but once they run into something they want to do that's kind of idiosyncratic they tend to ask me for help. While I think running models that have access to a shell is dangerous and should be handled carefully, the fact that they've been trained for this use case generally means they're pretty good at shell commands and can give you one a decent chunk of the time. I'm never willing to inject an external dependency controlled by a company into people's computing needs unless they specifically ask for it, so this is usually a lightweight local model specialized in tool use, but not given shell access. This isn't much different from how they'd use search engine for this purpose these days, but if running locally, it can be more fault-tolerant to issues that affect their internet access as well as offering better privacy guarantees, albeit obviously a little less capable
ADB is not the only option. Do the 24hs wait then the experience will not be much different than what already happens today: https://imgur.com/a/Z9hoYIh
Doing a 24h wait _is_ much different from what happens today. That's the whole point. If my two options to run an application of my choosing are to use ADB to flip a switch or to wait a day, that is ridiculous.
I am only slightly comforted by the fact that desktop computing had set (some) self-ownership precedence before the current restrictive computing hegemony took control, though even that is eroding.
I should not have to enter into a business relationship with google just to hand my non-technical friend an APK any more than I have to enter into a business relationship with the Linux Foundation to hand my friend an AppImage.
> I can't see where one can opt-out of this new behavior and into the existing behavior, only a description of the new behavior's bypass (which is not the same thing at all)
I don't understand this, the ability to bypass new behavior in settings menus is basically the defenition of a new feature having an opt-out. Can you elaborate?
And I kind of buy the intent behind the cooling-off period anyway. IIRC it's to prevent people from being pressured into installing apps by scammers that could then take their phones hostage
Yes. That attack is a very real attack. The attacker gets access to the victim's phone and sideloads additional apps that appear to be the victim's legitimate banking application. The victim logs into it and sees a fake balance (as the app is fake). Pressure and other social engineering tactics are invoked and the scammer walks away with all of the victim's money.
You still need Developer's Options enabled and plenty of banking and other apps complain if you do that. Why do I need the Developer's option enabled to run an app I developed myself, to be used by myself? It's clear they're heading to a walled garden and this is just a step towards that.
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
Yeah, saw that; rubbed me wrong. "If you disagree you are manufactured, a shill." This kind of condescension has never been very convincing. And I mostly agree with the petition.
This is certainly bad news, but at least an escape hatch exists (the "advanced flow") and it appears to be a one-time pain in the ass. If that changes, I hope GrapheneOS and friends[1] can get Google Pay or some alternative working so I can comfortably jump ship, as I rely pretty heavily on the ability to pay with my phone.
Russian here, a former Android and iPhone user. I had to switch to Graphene OS in full paranoid more due to our worsening situation regarding VPNs and phone searches.
After about a month of using Graphene OS, I'm not looking back – it's great. I'm not recommending it as a 100% solution for everyone, but it's definitely a very solid practical step towards keeping the phone yours:
1. Your phone will be able to operate as a basic phone (calls, SMS, web, photos / videos, location, Bluetooth, eSIM) without a Google account.
2. You will always be able to install an APK. This helps you install apps that are banned from Google Play Store in your country.
3. There's a duress PIN that lets you wipe the phone completely from any 'Enter PIN' screen. (I tried it, it's a bit messy, but it does wipe the phone and in the end you return to a blank Graphene OS installation – no need to reinstall.)
4. There's a setting that lets you disable any USB port functionality other than charging.
5. The permission system is amazing. If you are forced to install a state-mandated spy app (like the Max messenger in Russia), you can put it into a "permission jail" where the app assumes that it has access to the requested data but actually receives what you explicitly give it. For example, you can select individual photos and contacts to make available to the app – while the app will think that it has access to all contacts and photos. Bonus: the new Internet permission, which lets apps think that they are connected to the Internet while they are actually blocked from it.
6. You can have a separate profile for data and apps you don't want to expose. (There's also a Private Space for that, it's very convenient but it exposes installed apps via app search from the main space.)
7. There's an End Session function for a logged-in profile that stops it from running, wipes it from memory, and puts the data at rest.
8. You can have a separate VPN in each profile. This should help against situations where your local equivalent of Roskomnadzor sniffs out your VPN connection settings via state-mandated changes in apps operating in your jurisdiction, and bans that particular VPN later. Just make sure you install all spy apps under a profile with a disposable VPN that you aren't afraid to lose.
9. Each profile (and the Private Space too, because technically it is a special kind of Profile) can have a separate Google account. For example, one profile can have a Russian Google account (for banking and state apps), while another profile can have an Armeninan Google account (for things that are banned in Russia, like Spotify and Kindle.) However, to arrange this, you have to physically be in the desired country – Google doesn't let you change the account country without being there.
To sum up – if you are concerned about this situation, buy Pixel 10 (excellent hardware btw.), install Graphene OS (very easy, their web installer is great), and try using it for a while.
This is reason I don't use ios. I will be happy to use a new OS forked from android at this point of time. Any suggestions? I don't care where it originates from.
It runs a modified Debian and can run Android apps in containers. To my knowledge this is the closest we come to "open-source phone that actually works as a phone" today.
The android/iOS market shares vary a lot by country, with android dominating worldwide. North America is an exception with iOS in front (I think even more so in Canada). Maybe people _in the US_ choose android because it's different?
In Germany for example the android market share vs iOS is something like 60:40. India, something like 90:10.
Reasonable explanation: there's many more different price and feature ranges with android. I doubt the average Indian or German would say they bought an android "because it's more open", especially if they're in the great majority of people who don't work in tech.
The fact that many Android bootloaders are not allowed to be unlocked by users means, by definition, these devices were never yours to begin with. It is not Google taking away your ability to use your sideloaded apps on your device because true, unlimited device freedom was never yours to begin with.
Hence my phone selection spreadsheet having a column for unlockability, making sure I don't forget to check it. I'm so used to root, I'd full-on buy the phone just assuming it's a thing when some vendors indeed block you
That this is now rolled out ecosystem-wide by the central controlling party is a significant change from some vendors being assholes
This feels like something where the EU Commission should step in. This is directly counter to the Digital Markets Act, it's Google abusing its gatekeeper position.
It's not because you can still install apps outside the Play Store. The EU commission buys these "safety" arguments (also worked for Apple, they don't care that you still can't install IPAs) and the DMA is made for businesses, not for end-users. I once wrote them about the Chrome Web Store monopoly but they insist that everything is fine because businesses aren't impacted. They are of course also interested in centralized censorship because they can order Google to block apps they don't like.
They replied to me they did not see any legal problem with notarization.
We need a DMA 2.0 which address the oligopoly of dominant Operating Systems, including the freedom to install alternative OSes (no more signed bootloaders, proper hardware documentation, etc...).
My position regarding devices is that only 2 out of 3 should be satisfied:
1. Used as a proof of identity (for banks, govt services, etc.)
2. Is distributed to laypeople who have more pressing concerns in their lives than security.
3. Is an open platform where you can download apps arbitrarily from the Internet that can read your data and exfiltrate them to a malicious actor.
The mainstream today chooses 1&2. Novelty, underpowered devices choose 2&3. Hobbyists have option 3 (and those who like to live dangerously 1&3) with some inconvenience. You can still run GrapheneOS... and the mainstream apps that expect your device to be a proof of your identity won't work... and I find that quite reasonable.
I take issue with the idea that openness and freedom to install arbitrary software cannot occur without strong safety mechanisms. Android/GrapheneOS/iOS have sandboxing and permissions systems that put most desktop OSes to shame. The base platform can control apps' access to every resource, and an app store can put its own caveats and reminders to users for what kind of access is needed for the functions of a given app.
Sandboxing and permissions provide a different type of security than application signatures. Sandboxing can limit app capabilities, but it doesn't change the fact that you can accidentally grant a malicious application permissions.
Application signatures and developer identification bring a different kind of application security. It provides the security of societal legal systems and legal ramifications for malicious actors.
In the end, you still have the choice to trust the "system" or your own judgment.
This is not really a complex question as much as it is an analogy demonstrating that allowing third parties to dictate how you live leads to a huge loss of your freedom with bad consequences on your independence and control. But you are right: I could say this in my above comment.
It's a number of false choices. Google has complete control over Android and they could easily implement 1, 2, and 3 if they wanted. It's not as if they couldn't provide the means for certified secure enclave apps in addition to normal ones.
They are shiny. Many aspects feel more 'human', IMO.
If you use ad-blockers, I recommend exploring that use-case with Apple / Safari. It's doable though for me is a bit frustrating.
In fact, I urge creating a list of use-cases before heading out to the store, and cranking through those while at the store. Computers/phones are such a deeply entwined component of modern life it could be a long list.
Passwords, backups, bluetooth compatibility, connecting mass-storage devices to iPad / iPhone, etc.
Yes, but not because of those changes in the GMS stock OS, but because the ability to unlock the bootloader (and install the OS you can actually control) is being increasingly limited.
Stock GMS Android was never yours, you only had access to basic permissions, privileged/signature permissions were only accessible to Google/vendors anyway.
From my point of view I don't see anything wrong with knowing a little bit more about the person behind the app I'm trusting to do my personal compute on my personal device. Personally I always think twice when I download apps from company's whose names I don't recognize. Same with PCs... do you really want to run that *.exe you downloaded from that cool site you found?
Changes like this will help keep developers honest and accountable. Yeah yeah bad apples will still find ways to screw us.
If you want to publish an app to a global scale ecosystem, is it really too much to ask to give some ID?
This isn't the issue that's at stake here though: The question is:
> Who is making the decision which code is allowed to run on my device?
The status quo is already that can make this decision yourself. There are other people who make different decisions from you.
The proposed change is trying to take this decision away from you and making google the arbiter of which code is allowed to run.
The core of this issue is the opposite of "publishing an app to a global scale ecosystem" - I want to publish an app that is useful for me and a very small circle of people, that is what's being taken away.
> Same with PCs... do you really want to run that *.exe you downloaded from that cool site you found?
Yes, I am fully capable of making decisions about what software to run on my personal hardware on my own, thanks. I don't need Apple or Google or Microsoft to make this decision for me.
They're trying to fix social engineering. It's simply not possible.
It is going to sound odd, but.. why do we need a phone number at all ( I know why it is so entrenched -- I am asking about need )? Because, if phone number is not needed, we can move to bypass the annoying effective duopoly.
It's incredible that on the same device we can write pithy little comments, we can also play games, listen to music, read countless books, basically access the whole of the internet, and also empty out bank accounts. I'd wager most of those can be done on many people's devices in under a minute, with little more safeguard than a fingerprint.
To me this isn't some security flaw in android that allows users to do something. It's a fundamental flaw in having most of the world's population forced into using a device whose software, firmware, and hardware are gate kept by a handful of monopolistic companies. They want all your eggs in one basket, and they'll hold the basket for you.
For many people these things mediate a person's interaction with the world. That's not some super fantastic responsibility on Google's shoulders, but a humanist catastrophe caused in part by (and of course handsomely profitable for) Google.
I don't get it. Just ten to twelve years ago we did just fine without mobile banking apps. Just go to the bank. I've been using graphene with no g shite for a year and have zero issue paying bills on my laptop. If my bank starts requiring two factor from an app to pay in a browser I'll switch banks or just cost them money by paying in person.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47937256 <-- This mean that apps that have already been installed prior to Sept 2026 may continue to work for a while but will stop getting updates.
Does the new 24-hour process mean the apps will need to be uninstalled and reinstalled? That would mean the user's existing data in the could be lost in the process.
Will someone clarify my doubt ?
The lineancy of allowing sideloading by means of developer options in settings that requires one time wait of 48hr. Will that be available to all android os or only newer. I was using android 10 on samsung model that already hit end of support by brand years ago. So it update is in developer options and its os level would'nt that require ota update but with end of support for system updates from samsung itself how it will be pushed
If an update could silently block any app from working then your phone was never yours to begin with. Even if they never implement the update, the potential power means they own your phone.
We lost control of our hardware a long long time ago.
The regulation has blatant loopholes, as usual. While it did force Apple to allow third party app stores, all apps still have to go through a review process by Apple themselves before they can be installed from any source, and they retain the ability to block any apps they don't approve of. Google is just following in their footsteps.
Alternate app stores are still allowed. It's just that they are restricted to applications signed by developers who have paid a tithe to Google.
Google are obeying the letter of the law, while openly violating its spirit. Perhaps it'll be possible to attack them in court, but it will take years, and by that time they'll have found another trick.
this change makes Android more restricted than it was but still not as restricted as Apple. If anything I'd guess the EU vs Apple situation made Google more confident that they could get away with this change.
So what you're saying is that I have about 3 months to switch to Graphene? Really though, is this not the very definition of monopolistic behavior? Did they not just lose a lawsuit over this?
How could they, when Apple has been doing this for years? Same anti-anticompetition rules would have to be applied to them and then the indoctrinated fans (like up to ~30% of the population depending on where you live) will overthrow law and order
So much for vibe-coding apps for personal or niche use (e.g., club/sport/charity, etc.).
Or will Google carve out an exception for Gemini/Antigravity/CoLab/AI Studio/Whatever? At least a usable exception, but smells a lot like antitrust lock-in if you prefer Claude/ChatGPT/DeepSeek/Whatever.
The article has a whole page about how, while it is still technically possible, it is a massively messy, deliberately intimidating, 9-step process that takes 24 hours.
That looks to me like an entirely unusable and unacceptable situation if you want to just vibe-code up a little app to track your bike club rides or something.
The 15 minute cycle of: Looks good -» save-» install -» start debugging, oops, I've got to fix that -» repeat
Becomes a 25-hour cycle involving:
Looks good -» save-» do five steps -» reboot -» wait 24 hours -» 3 more confirmation steps -» install -» start debugging, oops, I've got to fix that -» repeat
And then, now that you're determined and spend all week working through a few refinement cycles and have the app you want, you can just give it to everyone at the meetup, THEY all need to get it, do the nonsense, wait 24 hours, do more nonsense, and then finally your bike group can track their rides.
You seriously think that is acceptable?
Being able to technically do something is a very different thing than being able to practically do something.
Now, you run it for a while, realize you need to make changes, make those changes and now have a v1.01 to use. Do you know it doesn't require a new install? It likely does, since you are not using the Google Play update mechanism.
And even if they do "allow" automatic updates of the same app without the delay, you really find this delay acceptable?
I'd be ok with a free self-certification of your own app, but forcing a 24hr delay, nope
This is way worse than "you're holding it wrong" — this is bad functionality by intentional design
> this flow runs entirely through Google Play Services, not the Android OS. Google can change it, tighten it, or kill it at any time, with no OS update required and no consent needed.
I am curious: Can you opt-out with the device not connected to the network?
From the statement in the article it seems that may not be possible?
Since Google is planning to apply this retroactively, people should be allowed to return their phones for a refund. Also, could someone use a warranty claim to ask them to replace with a device that does not have this issue?
Android's original openness did attract users, but the flood of poorly-made apps also created real fraud and crime risks. Those of us on HN have high security standards, but for older users, that old policy created genuine security vulnerabilities. Just observing my own family members.
That's not accurate. Most fraud apps targeting elderly users are distributed via APK links in phishing messages, not through Play Store. They impersonate banks, government apps, etc. The ability to sideload APKs is exactly what makes these attacks possible on Android but not on iOS.
Really good timing for Jolla to produce a new phone :)
I still have fond memories of my 2013 Jolla, and I'm hoping that the 2026 Jolla will be just as lovingly crafted. Most importantly, Jolla is a company that seems to care about me, the user, whereas Apple and Google constantly treat me like a peasant that needs to be governed.
Dont get me wrong: I'd love the linux phone "rebel" community to be as large as the android one. But... i doubt it will be anytime soon? The problem is getting the hw investment done first.
Android ecosystem is equivalent to windows one: its open enough to sustain a large number of vendors and tinkerers.
I doubt this scare-campaign (OP link) will drive people constructively towards (effectively) innexistent linux alternatives. It's more likely to do nothing or push people towards iOS
I've been a happy user of several of those "effectively inexistent" devices for nearly two decades now and I'm typing this on one of them. Whether they "exist" for you or not is your choice.
I'm doubtful, I for a bit bought a lot of the Pine64 devices thinking about this eg. not just Android/iOS... but the lack of feature parity eg. missing drivers, lack of apps, old hardware.
That's the depressing part. I keep looking for something I could potential run the likes of kde mobile and maybe waydroid on, but there's really just nobody doing this. You are basically locked into a vendor kernel if it's even available.
People forget how much the mobile hardware industry relies on non-free infrastructure. Infrastructure developed by companies that make the standards. You really can't make a good open-source phone because you, pretty much, have to play by the rules of the companies in these consortiums.
It does. They obscure the usage of non-free hardware/firmware by not shipping it as part of the OS, but as a bundle on separate flash storage that is loaded into the OS by initrd. That blob is updatable as "firmware". The 100% free open-source is just marketing. It's just for the OS. A lot of the hardware and firmware is proprietary.
It's basically taking the blobs that would be normally shipped with the OS in a sensible manner, shuffle it around, then calling it "free" while the same blobs would still be there, just on different flash storage chips.
Because it's true, and I know what he said, I am not confused at all. Did you not read anything at all?
On the Librem laptop, the tampering is done by PureBoot and inject into /run/firmware. The other user was linking the stuff with the laptop.
*On a Librem 5, it is stored on a separate chip, then they read it with the initramfs, then mount it on top of the regular filesystem at /lib/firmware*.
For the record, the "jail" only exists so PureOS (or any other distro) does not have to distribute any blobs within its repositories or include them in their images - though distros still can if they choose to, like postmarketOS does for example. There's very little difference between a firmware blob that's stored in a peripheral's internal flash, NOR flash or OS rootfs when it comes to user freedom, in the end it gets executed the same way on the same hardware. Having a separate place for these blobs only simplifies their management and allows to put a clear distinction of what's free and what's not. The important thing is that, regardless of whether the "jail" is used or not, there's not a single blob that runs on the user's CPU within the user's system on the Librem 5, which isn't a unique property for a phone but rare nevertheless; the peripherals are a different thing and Purism has never claimed that there are no blobs there (in fact, the existence of e.g. the DDRC blob was being highlighted already in very early development).
(also, the NOR flash itself already had to be there because that's what TPS65982 boots from, so the "jail" is just using the 4MB storage that would otherwise remain mostly empty)
I'm tired of arguing with you. I see no effort from your side to come to some understanding or to clarify anything. Here's why.
> On the Librem laptop, the tampering is done by PureBoot
What do you mean by "tampering" here? Is uploading firmware to peripherals a "tampering"? Why is this a problem, compared with other devices? Does anybof those blobs run on the CPU? I don't understand what you are trying to say.
> If you don't know that the firmware for components/peripherals can either be
I do know. How is this relevant? I never denied that the device does have some proprietary blobs.
> I see no effort from your side to come to some understanding or to clarify anything.
Accusing me of your own sins.
> What do you mean by "tampering" here? Is uploading firmware to peripherals a "tampering"? Why is this a problem, compared with other devices? Does anybof those blobs run on the CPU? I don't understand what you are trying to say.
On the laptop, messing with the system memory (/run) and dumping firmware packages in there instead of just shipping it with the OS using a sensible approach like the linux-firmware package is a hack-job and nasty practice. And since it's messing with system memory, that's your "tampering" right there.
On the phone, once again, instead of using a normal, sensible approach like the linux-firmware package on desktop Linux or the vendor partition on Android, they just store the firmware in some chip, then have the OS (or more accurately, the initramfs) mount the content of the chip using overlayfs in /lib/firmware anyways. It's another implementation of the same hackjob. That, and they combine it with using peripherals whose firmware are stored inside of internal flash chips so the OS doesn't have to be shipped with firmware packages that it then needs to load into the peripherals.
What does this entire exercise do for freedom or openness? *Asbolutely nothing*. It's called shuffling the firmware storage around so you can market the OS as "blob free" when it's literally meaningless. If anything, it makes it harder to audit and figure out which firmware version is being run than if the firmware were to be shipped along with the OS.
---
To dumb it down a notch if you really do not understand what I am trying to say:
This makes about as much sense as if I were to take the SSD out of my laptop, destroy the M.2 socket, then advertise it as a "storage free and OS free laptop". To use the laptop, you must plug in external storage through the USB port and load up an OS. But hey, since there is no SSD or OS on the "main" part of the laptop, I am now qualified for some made up certification and can advertise my stuff as "freeing" the user from the shackles of the evil storage system and nastiness of having an OS. Definitely more "open" than other laptops.
> If anything, it makes it harder to audit and figure out which firmware version is being run than if the firmware were to be shipped along with the OS.
For fsflover, what Purism is doing is moving the non-auditable part of the OS onto a separate storage device so that they can claim that the OS is "Fully Auditable" and FSF certified even though the non-auditable and non-free part is mounted into the OS filesystem during boot. It's deceptive marketing and you're spreading that marketing.
Other open mobile OSes aren't trying to hide the fact that there needs to be proprietary components for hardware.
The only thing I concede is that the drivers are FOSS, which is why some performance and functionality is degraded compared to phones using non-free drivers. You could develop an AOSP phone using the same FOSS drivers as well, you'll just have the same issues.
> what Purism is doing is moving the non-auditable part of the OS onto a separate storage device so that they can claim that the OS is "Fully Auditable" and FSF certified even though the non-auditable and non-free part is mounted into the OS filesystem during boot.
Yup, that's part of it.
But remember, even if they didn't do it, there's still a matter of them by using components with internal flash storage for the firmware instead of shipping firmware with the OS and letting the OS upload them. Like that's not a hackjob like the /lib/firmware or /run/firmware stuff or anything, but it's not like it's any more "open" than any other system, if not being a bit more opague. Of course the marketing would still be deceptive then.
Depends where you draw the line. There is not a single non-free blob in the OS that runs there once the bootloader is up (unless you put some there by yourself, which you're of course free to do).
I think you misunderstand what the Purism Firmware Jail is. I don't blame you though. They seem to make it purposefully misleading. It doesn't isolate what runs in the OS. It just isolates the OS updates from the non-free blob updates. The OS still runs the non-free blobs. It just loads it from separate flash.
It is you who is confused here. The first link is completely irrelevant to the Librem 5, and the second one points to a thread where the actual information present has been written by me.
The only non-free piece of code executed by the ARM Cortex-A53 cluster on the Librem 5 is the SoC's mask ROM bootloader. Once the control is passed to u-boot/ATF there is not a single non-free blob that runs there. Some peripherals may need blobs to be uploaded onto them to work, such as DP, DDRC and one of the used Wi-Fi cards (handled by ROM/u-boot/Linux respectively), while others boot from their own internal memories. Not all of those firmwares are non-free, but most are.
In the end, as I said earlier, the assessment depends on where you draw the line. I happen to draw it at the main CPU and the blobs that need to run within the user-controlled OS, which are unacceptable for me and which aren't present on the Librem 5.
Ah. I see. So the blobs are loaded into the separate microprocessors. Either way, it's the same as pretty much any modern phone, where the modem (and other secondary processors) are running some proprietary firmware and is communicating with the OS processor.
I don't see how it's different from running a free open-source ASOP OS. On the mainstream Android devices, the wireless hardware is also isolated and communication is done via IOMMU.
There's some debate as to whether using the USB stack for communication to the modem in the Librem 5 is less secure than IOMMU as well.
Pretty much any modern phone is also full of blobs that run on the main CPU to ensure basic functionality, with only a handful of exceptions. Just consider how many features stop working or get severely degraded on various phones when you use a clean AOSP build on them (provided that you can do it at all in the first place). Android's driver infrastructure effectively encourages non-free blobs in "vendor" partitions, and many things are purposely moved from the GPLv2 kernel to the userspace so they don't have to be copylefted. If you want to run a non-Android OS on these devices you either have to fill the gaps yourself or use these blobs through compatibility layers.
> at that point you still are trusting external communication to those devices with their proprietary blobs
Just as you do with any kind of peripheral, whether it implements what it's doing purely in hardware or with an embedded microcontroller.
> There's some debate as to whether the USB stack for communication to the modem is less secure than IOMMU as well.
You can have "some debate" on absolutely anything, but that doesn't yet mean it makes any sense. You have communication protocols on top of IOMMUs as well which are subject to exactly the same security considerations as potential exploits in the USB stack, so whatever debate you're referring to is unlikely to be held in good faith. I wonder why you mention it unprompted, as it's fairly off-topic here.
> Just consider how many features stop working or get severely degraded on various phones when you use a clean AOSP build on them.
That's mainly because of device trees. The firmware also isn't distributed via separate flash storage on the device, but I don't consider that making a difference. It's still proprietary firmware running on proprietary hardware. On Qualcomm-based Pixel devices, cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth, and GNSS are all isolated and sandboxed.
> It's also interesting that you mention it unprompted, as it's fairly off-topic here
A primary reason people complain about proprietary blobs is security. People claim that the Librem 5 is more open and secure, but it still uses the same proprietary modules as a Pixel running GrapheneOS. Does Librem 5 have signature checks for the firmware and a tamper-proof bootloader to load the firmware and OS, or can someone sell you a compromised Librem 5?
Is it more free, open, and secure than a Pixel running Android? Because, the only difference I'm seeing is how the firmware is stored and Google Play Services. And with GrapheneOS, only how the firmware is stored. Everything else points to a more insecure system with Librem 5.
Huh? The device tree is the one thing trivially recoverable from the blob. I'm talking about drivers, the same kind as when you install, let's say, the non-free Nvidia driver on a PC. They run as part of the OS and handle various stuff, most commonly comms like VoLTE/VoWiFi, but often also camera ISPs, GPUs, fingerprint readers etc.
> are all isolated and sandboxed
So isolated that you can break them by repartitioning your eMMC/UFS.
> A primary reason people complain about proprietary blobs is security.
The primary reason I care about blobs is freedom and practical aspects that come out of it. Dealing with blobs is always a PITA and severely limits what you can do with the hardware. The peripherals would be nice to have freed, but it's the main CPU and storage that is supposed to be my (the user's) domain and only mine. My Librem 5 came with a GNU/Linux distro on it, but if I wanted to port, say, FreeBSD to it there's all I need to be able to it. I can't do that with an AOSP device fed with blobs from the "vendor" image, at least not without spending years on reverse engineering.
The Librem 5 is one of the handful phones out there that make it this easy. It is also the only one I'm aware about that's still being sold where you have the hardware ECAD and MCAD designs available - and not just to look at, but published on a free license. I think it has earned its bragging rights when it comes to freedom and openness.
> can someone sell you a compromised Librem 5?
Of course, just like any other PC. You want to reflash it before use, obviously.
The SoC supports High Assurance Boot, you can burn your key into its efuses and have it only ever accept software that's cryptographically signed by you.
I see. So it is better in the sense that the drivers are open-source. Though the drivers in Android/GrapheneOS are not open-source, I believe the drivers are also isolated from full kernel-level access.
But it still brings the point that you can't make a phone without proprietary chips and firmware from the mobile industry giants.
> You want to reflash it before use, obviously.
I think that is non-obvious to the majority of users buying a phone.
> The SoC supports High Assurance Boot, you can burn your key into its efuses and have it only ever accept software that's cryptographically signed by you.
An important consideration for consumers is that their data is secure if they lose their phone. Without a secure boot process by default, that's a hard sell for the common masses.
The real question is whether it affects me as a user. The RF spectrum used by cellular networks is highly regulated, so I wouldn't be able to use it freely either way. The PC keyboard I type on right now most likely has some kind of microcontroller running some code in it, but it's of little consequence to me whether it's free or not. I do care about what runs on *my* system though, as that has tangible implications, and I care about it the same way whether it's my laptop or my phone.
> that is non-obvious to the majority of users
Yes, and the consequences of that can be seen in TFA - locking things down due to ill-defined security concerns. Why not go a bit further - the most secure device is the one you can't use to do anything at all.
On a side note, app attestation is already unironically getting us there - you have to either accept that you have no control over "your" device or not be able to use it to interface with the world. For me, any platform that allows applications to attest the environment they run in is insecure by design, as it can be exploited against me.
> An important consideration for consumers is that their data is secure if they lose their phone
Well, it's a good thing that PureOS is LUKS-encrypted by default then. It even has a smartcard reader, so key storage can be decoupled from the phone's hardware.
> Why not go a bit further - the most secure device is the one you can't use to do anything at all.
That's not far off a reasonable criticism of Purism's security model, that a device so wholly compromised it requires one to activate all physical kill switches to disable the hardware in order to so much as safely enter one's device PIN (per Purism's own site content), that it's no longer useful.
Everyone has to make their own trade-offs, but for me that's a model so questionable that its utility value rapidly approaches zero.
Citing an article [0], a post[1] on the site states, "Security researchers over the years have discovered ways to detect what you are typing on the screen simply by looking at variations in the accelerometer." (Infomercial-esque strikethrough not retained here.)
Purism's solution, apparently, is hardware switches. As I understand it, the accelerometer isn't disabled via hardware switches unless all hardware switches are disabled, as there is no discrete accelerometer switch: "To trigger Lockdown Mode, just switch all three kill switches off. When in Lockdown Mode, in addition to powering off the cameras, microphone, WiFi, Bluetooth and cellular baseband we also cut power to GNSS, IMU, and ambient light and proximity sensors."[1]
I don't care much about hardware kill switches myself - but many people clearly do. I've seen it when I was involved in the Neo900 project, I've seen it in discussions about the Librem 5 and PinePhone, I've seen it in reactions when Purism has released a tablet that lacked them. I guess it's because, unlike software, they're easy to understand and easy to trust. Most people don't understand or particularly trust software, for various reasons. Even with Android's security model, I don't think a regular user trusts that Google Play Services that run on their phone always do what they told them to, so they often long for something tangible that would give them a peace of mind. Hardware switches do that.
There's a matter of the modem being a whole separate device that's not really under the user control too. The only way to be sure that it's actually off is to not give it access to power. You can trust your OS, but the modem could still do its own thing regardless of what you asked it to, so I can get that too.
> The Purism model increasingly looks fatally flawed for anyone who doesn't have a very particular and narrowly defined threat model: one who trusts all software they run from the kernel to their applications completely, trusts their hardware completely, yet for [reasons] somehow fully mistrusts the sum total of the device at very specific, limited, and irregular intervals.
The Librem 5 is a general purpose computer that you can run whatever you want to on. I have no reason to distrust the GNU/Linux distribution that runs on it, but I could very well run Android, perhaps even with Play Services, on it if I had to for some reason, just like I used to boot into Windows on my PC many years ago. If I wanted to make sure that it won't access the radios or sensors while I do so, the switches would indeed not just be helpful, but effectively effortless.
The "lockdown mode" in particular is an answer to a UX issue. People want to have switches for various things, but if you just gave them all they ask for you'd end up with nothing but tons of switches around the screen. I believe the main motivation for the lockdown mode was squeezing the control over GNSS in when it was decided to use at most three switches, and the sensors then followed as adding them there could be done almost for free. You could do the thing PinePhone did, with plenty of tiny inaccessible switches behind its back cover; Purism opted for a limited amount of easily accessible switches, and I'm actually glad they did (it happened long before I got involved), because...
> Per Purism, it's perfectly usable in the same way any Linux slab with no radios or sensors of any kind is perfectly usable, yes, but that's stretching things in practical terms for a phone, and it's all very divorced from the reality of what most people expect from their phones.
I said that I personally don't care about the switches, but I also have to say that I surprised myself and ended up using them quite a lot. Not the mic/cam one, this one stays basically unused, but I'm using the cellular and Wi-Fi ones regularly - they're just super convenient. Whenever I want to save power or not be bothered by anything, I toggle the switches. If I had to unlock the phone and swipe through some menus, I probably wouldn't bother most of the time, but I don't have to, so I do. I used to be completely indifferent to these switches, but they ended up being really nice to have when I actually started using the phone. Let's not pretend that having an airplane mode option on a phone makes it a "slab with no radios", there are contexts where you do want to disable some things and continue to use the others.
> Still, it's entertaining. The marketing, the switches, the sweeping technical proclamations and bold self-assessments of high corporate ethics.
I don't see anything wrong in Purism providing what people have often requested. This is not exactly a kind of device that will just market itself, the more niches it can serve and differentiators it can tuck in without diminishing other aspects of the device the easier it will be to sell. I don't think the Librem 5 project would be economically viable if it only ever targeted people interested in Linux. Kill switches, modularity, smart card reader, replaceable battery, separate GNSS module, audio jack etc. are all attempts to extend its appeal and serve a yet another niche, as a device like this would never be able to compete on thinness or specs with what's offered mainstream. It makes perfect sense to me. Some of these things I enjoy, some I don't care about, but none bothers me.
> Beyond all that, installing packages from Debian stable on a mobile phone is a very enjoyable thing. I'm a former N900 and PinePhone user who's not opposed to making reasonable compromises for significant upsides, and would love a truly viable and fully open Linux phone that can run a variety of distros, but I remain unconvinced that the Librem 5 is that device.
I'm a former Neo Freerunner and N900 user, and a current Librem 5 user (with a PinePhone around too, but I already had a Librem 5 when I got it so I barely ever used it). Installing Debian packages is the only way I know how to use a smartphone. Well, okay, I used opkg in the past too :) I got involved in the project because it was clear to me that this was the device worthy of being the successor of my N900 and I'm happy with it and proud of what we, both Purism and the wider community, managed to achieve with it. In fact, I'm starting to get worried about it aging with no viable successor in sight. It's still fine today, but the arrow of time only points one way.
>> An important consideration for consumers is that their data is secure if they lose their phone
> Well, it's a good thing that PureOS is LUKS-encrypted by default then.
My bad, I meant leave their phone unattended. Wherein someone can compromise the device from boot, so that when unlocked, the device is fully compromised.
You don't have to lock things down to solve that either - see the measured boot process with Librem Key for an example.
(that said, this is a completely different threat vector that I doubt the common masses actually care about; and if I really had to choose between openness and evil-maid resistance, I'd choose the former)
I think the common masses just expect it in the first place. If you told someone that leaving their phone unattended could lead them to getting their data stolen, they would probably be surprised. I know this isn't a surprise to the HN crowd, but it is for regular people.
I would also guess that the common masses would choose the opposite as shown by them choosing convenience over openness. It's convenient to not have a separate key to prevent evil-maid attacks.
To be frank, I'm tired of this security theater. Yes, let's lock things down to prevent evil-maid attacks and bring in the technological dystopia in the process, who cares that the same evil maid could put your finger onto the fingerprint sensor and unlock the phone while you sleep without ever fiddling with the bootloader.
"The masses" used to use completely unencrypted devices for decades. That doesn't mean they don't deserve security, but it's up to us, the technologically savvy ones, to determine how to implement it and which trade-offs are worth making to provide it. The term "security" only ever has any meaning when paired with a threat model, and some threats are more plausible than others. Some people will absolutely require proper evil-maid resistance, some wouldn't care the slightest. The common masses would be equally surprised if you told them that they can't change the boot animation on their phone without preventing access to their bank app, so go figure.
I'm pretty sure that most of the actual evil-maids out there are phone owner's partners that they tend to share their bed with at night.
And yes, I don't think those are the only two available choices either. I already mentioned not just one, but two other ones above. They have some tradeoffs, but so does anything. Personally I'd choose a slightly less convenient option over a tech dystopia without second thoughts, but not everyone is tech savvy enough to even recognize the tradeoffs being made, and ultimately in the vast majority of cases it's not the users who make that choice, but Google and Apple.
> You can have "some debate" on absolutely anything, but that doesn't yet mean it makes any sense.
Sure, but from the fact that anything can be debated it does not follow that any given debate is nonsensical, which is kind of what you did there.
> ...whatever debate you're referring to is unlikely to be held in good faith.
I don't know which is odder, that assertion, or the notion that two completely different security models can't be debated in good faith because they're effectively identical, because of hand-wavy reasons like, "You have communication protocols on top of IOMMUs as well which are subject to exactly the same security considerations as potential exploits in the USB stack..."
Certainly there's some kind of argument to be made that the Librem 5 is relevant to this post as its adherents see it as a viable alternative to iOS and/or Android-based devices. I disagree, but everyone's willing to make different compromises and that's fair.
I only mention that because a contingent of voices as high in volume as they are few in number endlessly shoehorning the Librem 5 into numerous threads no matter how much of a non-sequitur it takes, has me suddenly paying more attention these days to what's coming from the Purism camp. The more I do the more disingenuous the rhetoric seems.
It may just be a coincidence, but for a project with such a fraught history and tarnished reputation, it doesn't do anything to increase my trust in it.
I explained in the other comment why I thing that GNU/Linux phones are relevant, where I posted. You can discuss my arguments, but you can't just dismiss them all with a single general wording like this.
> a project with such a fraught history and tarnished reputation
Another unsubstantiated attack on a free software project from the GrapheneOS crowd, with no links or argumentation.
> I only mention that because a contingent of voices as high in volume as they are few in number endlessly shoehorning the Librem 5 into numerous threads no matter how much of a non-sequitur it takes, has me suddenly paying more attention these days to what's coming from the Purism camp. The more I do the more disingenuous the rhetoric seems.
It seems to be mainly fsflover. You can search “Librem 5” messages in HN and it’s flooded with messages by them.
At least I don't reply to every comment about GrapheneOS with "it's not as free as Librem 5 and you have to pay Google, and you have to rely on blobs running on the main CPU" etc. This is exactly what the GrapheneOS crowd is doing with my comments.
I have to admit that I had a kind of knee-jerk reaction there, as this "debate" is very often brought up in FUD pieces without much substance behind it.
Well, what about PlayStation, etc?
Yes it has a PC inside. But, you own it with exceptions. A terminal for games. Similar to phones now. Some advantages and disadvantages here.
Anyway, they Own it, they Built it and they have Their rules.
I've been planning my move from Google for a while but this is getting me to pull the trigger. GrapheneOS, Kagi and Fastmail it is. I'll keep the gmail account open for mail forwarding but that's about it.
I've found that releasing and maintaining production Android apps has become more difficult in the last decade as compared to iOS which (surprisingly) has improved slightly.
Google Play removed a perfectly functional NFC utility app we released after a year of no updates (despite the fact that it didn't require any to work on the latest Android version at the time). By contrast, the App Store doesn't care as long as we continue to pay the annual developer fee.
We opted to open source the app and let users sideload the app as an alternative; now that will be far more difficult as we are no longer "verified" Google Play developers.
Really unfortunate, glad I'm not an Android user myself.
Algorithmically removing words from a headline with confidence that what comes out will be better is the precise intersection of stupid and arrogant that defines the modern tech industry.
Vote with everything you have/can. Money, attitude, consumption, political connections. Make these greedy (beep) regret it. Users and developers stop using Play store.
I have tons of apps I installed (mostly from Play Store) since like 2012, and that were grandfathered in through Samsung Switch from phone to phone as I replaced them with one another. A lot of data in them, too. Will they, and the data, just ... disappear?! When exactly do I have to do the 24 hour song and dance to prevent that? All of this sounds too bad to be true, honestly.
Sure, and don't get to go on public transport (or pay surcharges for paper tickets, depending on if your country still has that option), don't get to participate when everyone else can add music from their phone at a party, don't get to buy leftover food because the proprietary app doesn't run on there (it kicks me out for fraud detection half the time already), don't get to visit various websites that fingerprint your device and find that it might be a 'bot' (hello Cloudflare proxying about half of high-income countries' Internet), you pay extra for groceries compared to people that get discounts in some app, cannot login to government services, cannot do most things that requires being 13 years or older once this EU age verification app is implemented (no more HN for you!), etc etc. Very great option, welcome back to the soviet computing era
It's not optional anymore to own a Google/Apple smartphone in a lot of places. You can play this "just vote with your wallet" game but it's not a winning move
This is the question this website should be answering. Signing petitions is all well and good, but I want to vote with my wallet.
WHERE DO I SEND MY MONEY???
One thing I will do in the future is buy a nifty Motorola / GrapheneOS collab phone, but I can't do that yet. So for now: WHERE DO I SEND MY MONEY?
It is literally amazing to me that people aren't giving this as an option on such social coordination sites. Who is willing and able to sue Google over this? Who is actually doing it?
Well, it's never been yours, unfortunately. Every Android device with Google services is just a terminal with remotely controlled set of features, Google has lend to your phone manufacturer (not even to you!), and could shut down any time.
On one hand, having a free for all is very good, especially for developers, and for programmability of our devices as such. Screw iPads.
On the other hand, malware which coaxes normies into installing unverified apks, is an undeniable fact of life. It's nice to be pontificating as a power user who has never been phished or whose devices never became botnet zombies in their life.
On yet another hand, higher-end malware (made by those who can afford the store fees) is there on the freaking play store and app store, so, I guess, shrug
I realize this is a different discussion, but shouldn't it be? The way that it has been since home computers were a thing, as far as I know at least? I don't think we'd stand where we stand today if Commodore and other hardware vendors had required a license on every piece of software from the get-go (if we pretend that there was a known, exportable, and safe signature scheme back then)
I have to admit, in ancient times when the googleists could point schadenfreude at the appleists and brag about how open Android was compared to iOS, I was a bit envious. Now that terminal enshittification has infected Android too, I'm not feeling schadenfreude in turn. It's a sad day all around.
The level of panic here feels totally out of proportion. While these restrictions are a sad reminder of where personal computing is headed, the shift toward appliances over computers isn’t a new trend at all.
What’s more frustrating is the "your android phone will stop being yours" narrative. Where is that supposed to lead the reader? Moving to iOS to escape restrictions is a total contradiction, as the situation there isn't even comparable. The people who actually care - the F-Droid users and independent developers - are already used to jumping through hurdles and bypassing "install anyway" warnings. They won't be deterred, and new users will learn.
Honestly, you have to wonder if the goal of these dramatic campaigns is just to scare ignorant users into the Apple ecosystem or maybe to prop up emerging Linux phones.
But has anyone actually tried a mainstream Linux phone that isn't a nightmare to use? Compare that experience to the dozens of Android models that work perfectly with LineageOS or other variants. Those are 100% daily drivers with the power, cameras, and battery life fully working. Instead of helpful criticism, these headlines feel like they’re just herding people away from the only practical "open" hardware we actually have.
Another downside of this, besides what’s mentioned, is people becoming insensitive about security, when they get to blindly do that process to install legitimate apps multiple times, it will be easier to trick them to install malicious ones, so you are not improving security at all.
Not much, as it only works on very few high end phones not sold in most countries. Hopefully their Motorola partnership will expand its availability but I'm not confident that'll happen anytime soon.
Sadly forget about it - GrapheneOS will only work on Motorola __flagship__ devices, and most of their budget phones are not even made by Motorola, but rather by the odm such as Tinno, where it's not even possible to unlock the bootloader without exploits.
Ideally yes, otherwise any other AOSP-based ROM. There are many, and they support far more devices than Graphene, though implementations of e.g. Google Play services is more hacky.
You can’t use stuff like banking apps on a modified device and losing access to normal android devices would be a big blow to the momentum of the F-Droid community. GrapheneOS might not be a big enough community to sustain work on the projects delivered by F-Droid.
>You can’t use stuff like banking apps on a modified device
IME such apps are few and far between. The most trouble I ran into is play store refusing to show apps because they claim the app isn't compatible with the device, but that can be worked around with aurora store.
They really aren't. The number of apps requiring Play Integrity grows every day, my own bank's app hasn't worked in years and I've long given up on it, I just use it on a second stock device now.
And Google has an answer to the "just install the APK from somewhere else" workaround, too. Many apps now integrate a check that prevents them from running if they're not properly linked to the Play Store.
Depends highly on the bank and what part of the world you're in. Some banks have only a website and no app. Some banks have only an app and no website. Some require an app to access the website. The landscape is widely varied.
Don't know what the landscape is like in the US, but here in Europe, many banks require the app for any sort of online payment. There is no alternative. If your phone isn't stock, you're screwed.
I think parent is talking about Play Integrity being integrated into banking apps. It's a hit or miss depending on the bank, some will be fine without, some with integrate it but not rely on it to directly refuse login, some will require a lower integrity level, and some will actually require the highest integrity level leading to issues on custom ROMs.
My Android is running Lineage without Google Play Services (no microg either).
I had an app that I needed to use, and the only available log-in method was via firebase's SMS. Firebase flat out refused to allow me to login because of Google Play Integrity, and there was no web only option.
> losing access to normal android devices would be a big blow to the momentum of the F-Droid community.
For me it seems the opposite - if these "normal" (GMS spyware) Android devices lose the access to F-Droid and it will only be possible to install malware/adware from Google Play, then maybe that will push more people to value unlocking the bootloader..
I know this isn't the case with all banks, but for whatever my anecdata is worth I've been using a number of banking apps on mine for years, so it's incorrect to say that banking apps can't be used.
I wonder then if the workaround for THAT (losing access to Banking / "Google trust-deriving apps") is to get a second device, wifi-only no-SIM G-Android.
Cumbersome, but any other deterring reasons why "not a good workaround"?
People don't like the phrase enshittification, but the process Doctrow describes is so accurate (serve the users, then serve business customers at the expense of users, then serve the platform at the expense of users and business customers) it's hard not to see it everywhere. Phone platforms fit the template exactly, sadly.
In addition to what others have said, it means some developers who were building for Android are going to stop. You can't install an app when someone is obstructed from building it in the first place.
> every Android app developer must register centrally with Google before their software can be installed on any device. Not just Play Store apps: all apps.
> Registration requires:
> Paying a fee to Google
> Agreeing to Google's Terms and Conditions
> Surrendering your government-issued identification
> Providing evidence of your private signing key
> Listing all current and all future application identifiers
Google is not an entity you can can trust with this.
Delve into System Settings, find Developer Options
Tap the build number seven times to enable Developer Mode
Dismiss scare screens about coercion
Enter your PIN
Restart the device
Wait 24 hours
Come back, dismiss more scare screens
Pick "allow temporarily" (7 days) or "allow indefinitely"
Confirm, again, that you understand "the risks"
Nine steps. A mandatory 24-hour cooling-off period. For installing
software on a device you own.
Worse: this flow runs entirely through Google Play Services, not the Android OS. Google can change it, tighten it, or kill it at any time, with no OS update required and no consent needed.
And as of today, it hasn't shipped in any beta, preview, or canary build.
It exists only as a blog post and some mockups.
Had to read that sentence twice. You really think that there's more people getting scammed via "please tap the build number seven times and then go to extra settings and enable untrusted installs and then go to this website that I will dictate the URL of and you should ignore that install warning" etc etc etc. to install an apk to run software that can barely access more than a simple webpage could, than there are people (like HN'ers) who install apk files from github and f-droid?!
(Also note that "crapware" describes basically every app you find in google's store. I try on occasion, when nobody made an open source this-or-that, and it's such a minefield. If that's the thing you're trying to avoid, I don't know how you could possibly feel positive about a requirement to only use the Play Store for the tech-illiterate)
> more people getting scammed via "please tap the build number seven times and then go to extra settings and enable untrusted installs and then go to this website that I will dictate the URL of and you should ignore that install warning" etc etc etc.
I don't really understand. You seem to be against the 'annoyance' of the protections, but that annoyance is precisely why the scammed count is lower, no?
I certainly believe _more generally_ that the market for scam victims is much bigger than the market for sideloaders, for example.
What I'm against is the mandatory registration to get a key signed by a party we don't elect, who controls all (soft-mandatory^1) devices that aren't controlled by the other party we didn't elect, and both are controlled by a government that we have no say in and is acting increasingly hostile towards everyone but fellow belligerents (Israel, Russia.. seeing a pattern here).
Your "it's just a bit annoying" argument seems irrelevant compared to that, even if it would reduce scams, which I have seen no evidence for or against. Did you find or come across any evidence for it?
> the market for scam victims is much bigger than the market for sideloaders
That makes no sense. Of course the market for "scam victims" is current-earth-population.com minus one (the person doing the scamming); this is a universal constant you're comparing against
If you mean the number of people who would potentially get scammed by being told to do a dozen steps to install some app which can barely do more to aid the scam than a webpage could, then I'm interested in how you end up with those figures!
Given that maybe every 20th person is decently tech-literate and that I have yet to come across a scam where installing software on your phone is a component of it (including via google's; just any kind of mobile software installation), the way I figure the "market sizes" are about 400 million to somewhere around nil
The scams this directly targets are well known and common. Someone gets a phishing message, they have someone install some sort of malware on the device, then their bank accounts are drained into some offshore account never to be seen again.
That's why there's a requirement for restarting the phone and waiting 24 hours.
The restart ends the connection for any remote-access software or phone call that might be driving the operation -- and the 24 hour wait period breaks the "urgency" part of the scam that prevents other people who know better from stopping the vicim from continuing.
To be fair, that's a one time process. You do not need to do that for every app you want to sideload.
The malware issue that the flow is designed to mitigate is a very real problem. Perhaps there is a better way, but it's not immediately clear what that is.
You are thinking about it from the point of view of an enthusiast/hacker who wants to put their homebrew stuff on it. But this is also tightening around developers who may want to distribute their applications to lay users.
Unless they do something google doesn't like, or trip one of their many automated systems that ban them without recourse. Or they are compelled to revoke a key by a government.
Revocations are for apps being malware and nothing else, much like macOS Gatekeeper (Apple doesn't even revoke certs used by Warez groups to sign cracked apps).
Automated bans can be an issue, but that's an edge case. Google already had the functionality to 'revoke' an app if ordered to do so by a legal authority.
It is much more important to make a real world attack - something that is draining wallets of ordinary people across Thailand/Brazil/SEA in general - harder to achieve. One thing is a political goal of some people in the west, the other is an ordinary person not having the money to feed themselves because a scammer stole it all.
I can't trust Google will keep to that, sorry. Nor can I accept harms being twisted into a further centralised accumulation of power (especially when Google, with all their resources, could likely do much more to prevent these scams than grabbing that power for themselves)
Well, the very good news is that Google is not seeking your trust. You have no say at all. This is the new system, it benefits actual real people over HN commenters and you will just have to deal with it.
Google doesn't have the ability to change the way banking apps work with regards to transferring money from one account to another in Malaysia/Brazil/Thailand. That would be a matter for the national Governments. This is the best approach available.
Because grandmas all over the world are getting swindled by scam apps.
Look, I can't locally install a web extension I wrote on an open-source Firefox browser, because security. I have to install a Developer Edition, or get the extension reviewed and signed by Mozilla, for the very same reasons of thwarting scammers. Is this stifling, or is it making my browser not mine? Is anybody making a big deal out of that?
The world we inhabit is not always friendly. It has a ton of determined and sophisticated bad actors, and a lot of people with less technical savvy than you and me. We have to deal with that, instead of being cantankerous.
It's not obvious to me that this will help much with scamming. Especially when it affects safer app repositories like F-droid more than the cesspit that is the official Play store.
And most Android banking malware is distributed through unsafe sideload installs (as opposed to much safer Gatekeeper-style installs, which is what is coming) and are fed to victims through complex attacks involving obtaining a victim's personal information and calling them while credibly pretending to be a local authority or a bank representative. You can read about this wherever you get news about cyber crime.
This is a scourge in South East Asia and Google can do some good here. The only cost is whining from non-technical people. Everyone else will go pay $25 or whatever and sign their app.
Play Store being a cesspit is indeed a problem! But it still is making a constant effort to drive away scammers, so scams don't last too long there. Scammers show sleek-looking web pages offering to install an "official app" from their own apk. Or they have an app that clandestinely sideloads another app. This is being curbed.
But it's limited to a one-time action, not encumbered by additional papers or payment. I don't foresee any trouble using F-Droid (which I use a lot) after I have dismissed the scary screens and confirmed that I know what I'm doing.
>It's not obvious to me that this will help much with scamming.
Because as a reader to this forum, you're probably more tech savvy that the average person. Moreover this type of scam seems to be more common in Asia than the West, see:
They convince users to download a "government app", grant it accessibility permissions, then use that to take over their phone and drain their bank accounts.
>Especially when it affects safer app repositories like F-droid more than the cesspit that is the official Play store.
Where do you draw the line? If you whitelist f-droid, do you have to whitelist third party f-droid repos too? What about other app "stores" like obtanium? Moreover f-droid being less of a "cesspool" is likely because its reach is smaller, not because it has better moderation.
I'm aware of the way the scams work. I'm also aware that scammers tend to be much more motivated to jump through hoops that are put in front them (more so than legitimate users!). Scammers can also talk people through many, many warning signs.
Scammers cannot talk people past a 24 hour wait. This attack is built upon pressure and operates at a scale that makes stealing many identies, building different-enough apps to avoid getting flagged by Google and signing them all non-viable.
The 24 hour wait period is so the scammer can't use the element of urgency to keep the victim on the phone where they don't have the opportunity to speak with trusted friends/family who would stop the scam.
This isn't referring to the efforts Google has gone to try to thwart sideloading.
It is another requirement of Google's, where all developers must be registered to them and apps must be signed by them and anything that isn't will be blocked.
Less savy and unmotivated users.. maybe? Whats the main use cases for newpipe? Let me guess: get premium features for free (no ads, downloads etc).
Do you think people wont click 9 buttons and wait 24hs for this?
Its like people forgot how pirated windows/sw used to run on millions (billions) on devices in the past until ads (and some convenience from non-so-cheap-anymore subscriptions) became the norm
Our phones stopped being ours ever since we accepted phones with locked bootloaders. I hope Android and iOS both disappear. Trading freedom for security has resulted in what we knew would happen.
It is absolutely maddening that I cannot see files on my own phone.
And very very very few devices still allow getting around this. Often at a cost of significantly degraded experience, as Magisk plays the cat and mouse game of trying to hide your illegal access privileges to your own devices from your bank or some random app that decide to throw a Play Integrity check in.
Tip of the anti-personal computing spear, a complete denial of the user agency. Absolutely wretchedly forsaken.
The real mystery is why anyone remotely aware of the Free Software movement would have ever been duped into advocating for handheld computers so hostile to their own goals.
Ugh such overreaction. ADB is still a thing. Apple doesn't even have an official command like tool where you can just push an IPA to your phone. Goodness.
With that reasoning every action would be justified to stop scammers. Google should capture all your calls and check if there could be scamming going on, right?
The current malware situation at android store situation does not help to carry that point:
> Google doesn't want millions of people to have every cent of their money stolen.
Megacorporations like Google do not care a single bit about ordinary people. They only care about making more money. How do they make more money? By preventing people from installing NewPipe and Blokada.
I sorta get that reasoning, but is a 24 hour cooldown really going to stop scammers? They're already used to multi-day scams, so wouldn't they just say they'll call back in a day to finish the process?
Yup. The specific scam here is built upon preventing the victim from talking to trusted individuals. A cooldown breaks the spell.
Complex, multi-day pig butchering stuff is not what Google is going after here or would have any hope to defeat. But they can deal with banking malware.
Respectfully, I think this is the wrong fight. And I fear it may be counter-productive, because all the effort put into asking Google to make it a little less painful to install an unverified app is not put into the real fight.
IMHO, it should be fine for Google or Apple to do whatever they want with their OS. What should be forbidden is to prevent people from installing an alternative OS on their hardware. But this is not all Google's doing there: all the Android manufacturers are actively preventing users from doing it.
When I buy an Android phone, I should be able to unlock the bootloader, add custom signing keys, install whatever OS I choose, and relock the bootloader. Interestingly, currently this is possible on Google Pixels, but not on most other Android devices.
When I use an Android phone, a company building an app should not be allowed to ban my OS "because it is not the Google OS". That is, using Play Integrity or whatever they do to ban alternative OSes should be forbidden. But again, this is not entirely Google's fault: the companies choose to add those checks in their ** app. And it is a bigger problem there, because while I can install an alternative OS on my Android device (e.g. GrapheneOS or LineageOS), I can NOT install an alternative client for e.g. my bank.
Back to side-loading: really it's mostly a problem for F-Droid on Stock Android, as far as I can see. And really, people who care about using F-Droid would probably be happy to use an alternative OS, if it was reasonably possible. We should fight for that.
ARM doesn't have any initialization/boot standard enforced on phone manufacturers so everyone is doing their own and never upstreams anything. It's a general ARM problem. PC with some lucky coincidence avoided that fate and we got used to it. RISC-V is in even worse shape than ARM as the fragmentation is even at the CPU instruction level. Both ARM and RISC-V have some discussions/proposed standards but nothing enforced anywhere.
Interesting insights, thanks!
If I may ask: is that a reason to prevent me from unlocking, adding custom keys and relocking the bootloader? It feels like you are talking about the implementation details below that. I don't really mind if it is different, I just want a common API, and it seems like whatever is done on the Pixel phones is totally fine. Why not make that mandatory for all manufacturers?
Nevertheless, postmarketOS manages to run Linux without Android on quite a few phones.
Link for the downvoters: https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices.
This should apply not only to phones. Every device with CPU and programmable memory should allow user to reprogram it. However, the user may waive this right for purpose of theft protection.
Agreed. And it does not mean that they should open source everything.
If I buy a connected fridge, they should give me a technical way to flash my own OS on it. Maybe I will lose most functionality by doing that, and maybe it will be a lot of work for me to get the OS working properly with the fridge. But it should be possible.
> Respectfully, I think this is the wrong fight.
Respectfully, no.
There are no mainstream OS alternatives. You're standing up to fight for 0.000001% of users and leaving everyone else stuck.
Fighting to win our phones back is fighting for the 99.99999%.
These devices are the most important part of everyone's digital world. Certainly the non-technical folks. You can't even order food at restaurants anymore without them. You can't date or socialize as a young person without one. It's becoming your state-issued ID. It's everything.
And two companies control everything you do.
They need to be stripped of all of their power to constrain these devices. Once you buy the device, it's yours.
These belong to society. Not the two giant monopolies that won a battle decades ago and forever get to sit atop their pile of gold like dragons. They should never be able to dictate the world downstream, and certainly not with the authority they have today.
Web installs. No scare walls. No hidden menu settings. First class distribution and support for web sans app store. No ability for these companies to strong arm.
They're taxing all of human innovation. Any time you want to reach someone, they stand in the way. They ask for 30%, they mandate the tech, the updates, they divorce you from choosing payments, login, your ability to talk to your customer.
As a consumer this means new tech companies can't start and grow big and fight the incumbents. The incumbents can move anywhere and dump on it. They can put a ceiling on outside innovation and copy or acquire it on the cheap.
All of tech is becoming a lock and shackle authoritarian regime with permanently fixed leaders, ossified tech, and banana republic fleecing of everything new. This is bad for consumers and freedom and innovation.
Respectfully - no. You're wrong. These companies need to be slapped hard by every regulatory body in the world.
They shouldn't have freedom. They should have responsibility they're fearful of. And they should have competition.
Competition is good. Capitalism should be hard. Apple and Google should be sweating, not coasting. This should be a responsibility, not a fish in barrel situation.
I feel like you missed my point. I am fighting for the 100% (and you are not, as you say). We should all own our devices, and owning a device means that we can install whatever OS we want on it. The beauty of it being that if you can install whatever OS you want on it, then the problem raised by the article does not exist anymore.
Today, if you own a Pixel, you can just install GrapheneOS and it will mostly work. Why just "mostly"? Not because of GrapheneOS. Because of some goddamn companies (usually banks) who want to lock you into the Google flavour of Android.
If you own another device, maybe you could install LineageOS or /e/OS, but chances are that you won't be able to relock the bootloader, so you will lose the security model of Android. For many people, this should mean that it's not a reasonable option. But that's not LineageOS' or /e/OS' fault: it's the manufacturer's fault: they are locking you into the Google flavour of Android (which many times also means their own flavour based on top of the Google flavour).
And on many other devices, you just cannot install an alternative OS at all, so you are stuck with the Stock OS.
You are essentially saying "it is fine that 99.99999% of the people are locked into their manufacturer flavour of Android, as long as we can keep using F-Droid" (because really, the changed discussed here mostly affects F-Droid, and it would be debatable whether or not F-Droid's design is fine or not).
I disagree, it is not fine. When we buy an Android device, we should be able to install an alternative OS, period. All of us.
well if in the 10year future new OS are as easy installed as apps now, maybe. But that future is far off. Getting my grandma to install NewPipe is easier if Fdroid works on her phone, than to get her to install the new totallyFLOSS-OS
Have you tried installing GrapheneOS? I don't think it's harder than properly installing F-Droid and then installing NewPipe with it.
> the new totallyFLOSS-OS
Nobody said it has to be new and totally FLOSS. Just build on top of AOSP, which is open source and very mature, and that everybody knows (because it is Android :-) ).
> When we buy an Android device, we should be able to install an alternative OS
That's not freedom for the world.
That's freedom for you and ten people.
The bigger thing to fight for is removing Apple and Android's power over what happens post-sale. And that can include your demand, but it also includes a whole hell of a lot more about vanilla/stock Android/iOS.
Only because you don't know what those alternatives are.
I can take a random person in the street, show them my /e/OS or GrapheneOS phone and ask them what it is running. They will 100% say Android.
I can ask them to use it for 10min (write messages, open the browser, swipe TikTok) and they will never realise that it is not running "the Android signed by Google".
It is so, so close to the Android signed by Google that it's not worth "improving" the Android signed by Google! If you want to remove the power of Google over Android, just use one of those alternatives and the problem is solved. The pain points with those alternatives are what we need to fight. And really it's just a few small things that need to be regulated.
This is an idealism vs realism fight. You're both right in that you're both fighting for the end user to have ultimate control of their device.
However, there's a major caveat here. Google's play protect prevents me from using some apps on my phone running graphene. My banking app is one of them. Yes I know there's technical workarounds. Yes I know they have a website (for now). But the point is, this is the direction stuff is moving. Fully signed devices from power-on through the entire stack and a flag that warns software if that breaks. Yes, it's a win for security. But I have zero control. Google has all the keys to all the doors and graphene can't do anything about it. Nor can I. And Google has very little incentive to change this.
I fear this is the direction things are moving to. Phones will be tied to our identity. Web will be depreciated as a security risk. Only one of the two options you two are fighting over fixes this: power must be taken from these mega corporations.
> Google's play protect prevents me from using some apps on my phone running graphene. My banking app is one of them.
Well, your bank is the one choosing to prevent your from running it on GrapheneOS. That's my whole point again! We need to regulate that: it should be forbidden to ban alternative OSes!
Now complaining about the fact that side-loading will require a ONE TIME, "annoying" procedure is not helping this AT ALL. It's just "oh no, I could do it with one click, and now I have to do it in 9 clicks, that's terrible, we need to bring it back to 2 clicks because anyway we won't win if we hope to bring it back to 1 click".
I'm exaggerating of course, it is a big problem for e.g. F-Droid (and maybe others?). But my point is that it's just cosmetic, it's not helping the cause. It's not moving us one inch closer to a better world. On the contrary: it's monopolising the attention of policymakers. They already don't understand much, and we flood them with complaints they don't understand (because really, 99.99% of the Android users don't give a shit about side loading, why would the policymakers care?).
The solution is simple: make it mandatory to allow alternative OSes (which is pretty much as simple as making it mandatory to unlock/relock the bootloader, and maybe remove a few other barriers that exist just for locking us in) and making it illegal to ban alternative OSes with Play Integrity (which is what banks are doing). That's all. No need to fight every decision Google makes and still lose every single time.
We need to get our act together and get the policymakers to do the right thing. But to be fair to the policymakers, technical people on the internet are asking for everything and its contrary.
I'd be happy with either approach, frankly. I just think yours is slightly less realistic.
> Well, your bank is the one choosing to prevent your from running it on GrapheneOS. That's my whole point again! We need to regulate that: it should be forbidden to ban alternative OSes!
The bank isn't banning graphene os. They're banning anything Google labels as untrusted. I think that's an important distinction. This is Google's doing. I don't have the ability to declare "this is my device and I trust it and everything on it" to the banks. And I can see Google's point in that it would be extremely difficult to do this in a way that couldn't be exploited maliciously. Are there ways for the .001 percent of people out there who understand this? Absolutely. But only if our overlords let us and even then we're back to the point that this is only for the people in the know.
Which is why I personally don't think enforcing alt OSes will help. We have it now; most people don't know and wouldn't care if they did. Play protect is the same. The amount of people this would impact is beyond minimal. However the problem isn't minimal; this is already a huge problem and it's getting bigger quickly. Giving people the keys won't fix it fast enough, or for enough people.
Tech already controls our life and that fact is only getting more worrisome. It's past time for the governments to treat this the same as electricity. Everything standardized, everything regulated, and I can plug whatever the hell I want into it. I don't want to just break free for myself. In order to really make change, my grandma needs to think of her phone like a power outlet.
This is a great discussion, by the way.
> The bank isn't banning graphene os. They're banning anything Google labels as untrusted.
I don't agree here :-). AOSP provides an attestation mechanism that totally works with GrapheneOS [1]. Google provides Play Integrity on top of that, as an easy way to check that the phone is signed by Google. It doesn't say "it's unsafe if it is not signed by us", it just says "here is a way to verify that it is signed by us".
The bank chooses to check that it is signed by Google and to refuse everything that is not. The bank chooses that.
First, they don't need to check at all. Many banks don't, it seems like it's a new thing. I don't believe that there is any security concern there: it probably has to do with policy, or security theatre. It isn't serious security, because serious security would not ban GrapheneOS. I doubt it is to help Google, I think it's just incompetence (and a cheap way to do security theatre).
Most apps run on GrapheneOS, most apps don't use Play Integrity. Those who do choose to do it. And there are banks that choose to support the GrapheneOS attestation, though it's the exception.
[1]: https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...
I feel like this is semantics. I don't know all what they say, but I'd eat my breakfast cold if the word "safety" didn't come up in the PowerPoint deck. We may have to agree to disagree on this.
My point was that this is the direction the world is moving to. Maybe it's not total coverage yet, but every year more and more of our stuff only operates with verified trust through the entire process. Everything from video games to movies to programs. We're already sitting here complaining about Google enforcing developer verification, how long until Google turns on play integrity by default? And then how long until it's the only option? It'll come if something doesn't change.
And I still agree with the post way up above that these devices are too important now. I don't care about Google's interests here.
> My point was that this is the direction the world is moving to.
And I agree with that, but it feels to me like it reinforces my initial point: fighting the Google flavour of Android is a lost cause.
> We're already sitting here complaining about Google enforcing developer verification
Which isn't a problem on alternative Android OSes like GrapheneOS.
> how long until Google turns on play integrity by default
Agreed. The solution is to be able to use an alternative Android OS like GrapheneOS :-).
> It'll come if something doesn't change.
And what needs to change is that regulations need to make it illegal to actively choose to ban alternative Android OSes.
The thing with regulations is that you need to find something applicable. When people complain about centralised system and lobby for regulations that will help their federated system, without even debating about whether or not the federated system is "better", the fact is that it is not applicable. It is not reasonable to say "so now, if you write a messenger app, it has to use the Matrix protocol because Matrix convinced us of it". If I want to write a different protocol, I should be able to do it, right?
But what I am suggesting here is both reasonable and applicable: currently those banks have to add code to their app in order to ban alternative OSes. If a regulation makes it illegal, they just have to remove it, and banks who don't have it yet just don't add it. It's easy to verify: if my banking app doesn't boot on GrapheneOS, I can complain to the regulator, and the regulator can trivially verify it.
Same thing for allowing to unlock/relock the bootloader: super easy to verify, a regulation would work great.
Now back to the article: what are we asking? That the process of installing an unverified app manually is not made "so hard", with "hard" being some variant of "it's terrible if I have to wait 24h one time in order to enable this", for something that approximately nobody does. Look at all the effort that has been put against this change... and again they will lose. And if they managed (very unlikely) to get regulation for that, they would be screwed next week by the next change.
That's why I say it's the wrong fight: not only it's a lost cause, but it is strictly less useful than the simpler solution of defending alternative Android OSes with simple regulations.
The plan to rely on the presence of alternative OSes is only good so long as those OSes exist. They do today, but it is more of an exception rather than a rule. In a hypothetical scenario, where a signifcant portion of users switch to one of these alternative OSes, there will be an incentive to monetize.
So I'd agree there should be rules what OS should and shouldn't do. And yes, it shouldn't be a fight with an enterprise entity, which has little incentive to restrict itself. It should be a lawmaker level discussion, unfortunately they are pursuing other agendas over there.
> In a hypothetical scenario, where a signifcant portion of users switch to one of these alternative OSes, there will be an incentive to monetize.
Which is why it's better to choose an alternative that is open source, so that when they become evil, you can switch again. It's always been like that: we're fleeing from successful companies becoming evil. What has changed is that those companies have found a way to make it illegal for us to flee, and I suggest we fight against that.
"But this is not all Google's doing there: all the Android manufacturers are actively preventing users from doing it."
Google is (a) restricting "Android" functionality through trademark and software licenses with manufacturers and (b) paying the manufacturers, e.g., through placement agreements and revenue sharing agreements
Given Google's actions in this regard, why would a manufacturer want to allow hardware purchasers to remove Android and install an OS of their own choosing, e.g., one that does not enable Google data collection, surveillance and ad services and generates no revenue for the manufacturer
The idea of regulating manufacturers that partner with Google seems far-fetched, not serious. For example, I don't see HN comments suggesting Apple should be prohibited from interfering with buyers who want to remove iOS and install another OS in its place
Meanwhile the control, privacy, etc. problems with these corporate OS are avoidable right now by choosing different hardware, specifically hardware that allows installation of open source OS that a concerned buyer can edit, compile and install themselves
I feel like you haven't read enough HN reply but I've said the exact thing about Apple OS they can have it and have HW but they should be seperate companies and the OS regulated like the monopoly service it is.
OSs are few in number and are special pieces of software supported by extreme network effects and locking in effects. Its virtually impossible to abandon mainstream OSs even in the desktop world which is much more permissive their are basically 2 OSs. You can count Linux as a third but its not a serious market share competitor yet! EU and France might change that.
But essentially total OS control allows a type of anti competitive behavior that is unavoidable. You either need 10s of options which are different in the services which isn't viable because modern OSs are some of the most complex pieces of software in existence. Your only other option is to regulate them like the power company because its not practical to build your own grid to have fair pricing and access
"I feel like you haven't read enough HN reply but I've said the exact thing about Apple OS they can have it and have HW but they should seperate[sic] companies and the OS regulated like the monopoly service it is."
Was this under a different HN account
I went through all replies by xphos and found nothing that discussed removing IOs and running some other OS on an iPhone
What I want is for Apple to sell hardware that has no OS installed. This is actually how I prefer to buy computers today, with no OS. I just want the Apple hardware, not the Apple software
The AirPort Extreme was the closest I have seen to this wish for Apple hardware without Apple software coming true. It included Apple software, but it could be operated using a NetBSD 6.x kernel
s/IOs/iOS/
Ironically, I think regulation is what keeps them in power. They are major companies that comply with government regulations. Why would the government regulate to allow people to have devices that forgo government regulations?
If you want a successful mainstream operating system. It needs to work within the rules of society. It needs to comply with regulations. It needs to cooperate with mobile device manufacturers and network operators.
These small grassroots operating systems fail because, to do all those things, you need to be pragmatic.
The next major operating system will be backed by a business or government.
> If you want a successful mainstream operating system. It needs to work within the rules of society. It needs to comply with regulations. It needs to cooperate with mobile device manufacturers and network operators.
Which can be done with a small team by building on top of AOSP, like GrapheneOS does. How is that not pragmatic?
I would group GrapheneOS with Android. If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android.
But considering it as a separate OS, I wouldn’t consider it mainstream. It’s not on any device by default. And it has an estimated 250k users out of ~3.9 billion Android users, or 0.0064%. It might seem mainstream for the tech community, but it goes to show how small the tech community is.
It might be mainstream once Motorola, a corporation, starts releasing phones preinstalled with it.
> If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android.
Agreed, that's exactly it! The pain points of GrapheneOS/LineageOS are due to the fact that device manufacturers don't allow proper support (typically the bootloader story) and that big companies like bank choose (more and more) to ban whatever is not signed by Google (through Play Integrity). I argue that those things should be regulated.
> And it has an estimated 250k users out of ~3.9 billion Android users
I think it's more than 250k, but let's go with that. There are Android manufacturers that are in the same order of magnitude. What would you say if your bank banned your Fairphone (that runs Stock Android signed by Google) just because it is a Fairphone, and "a few hundred thousands of users is marginal"? I think even the regulators would directly understand how that is a problem. Microsoft Office shouldn't be allowed to just ban Framework computers running Windows just because they don't think Framework is big enough, right?
It's not "Google vs alternative Androids": there are many Android flavours, from Samsung to Sony through Xiaomi and Fairphone. We don't tell Fairphone that they have to be mainstream before they get the right to sell Android phones.
The very reason alternative Androids are (slightly) harder to use is that they are not mainstream, so banks ban them for no reason because they can, and Google is happy to do nothing about it because those are competitors.
We need to regulate that.
> What would you say if your bank banned your Fairphone (that runs Stock Android signed by Google) just because it is a Fairphone, and "a few hundred thousands of users is marginal"? I think even the regulators would directly understand how that is a problem.
We're talking about different operating systems on devices, not the same operating system on different devices. Also, it's not the same as modifying the stock OS that does work with a non-stock OS that doesn't.
The hardware analogy would be closer to having a computer, replacing the GPU, then getting angry that there isn't a driver for the GPU that supports that operating system.
> Microsoft Office shouldn't be allowed to just ban Framework computers running Windows just because they don't think Framework is big enough, right?
Apple doesn't allow their operating systems to run on non-Apple devices. Likewise, Microsoft does have the right to restrict what systems Windows can run on. Any software provider has the right to limit their software's usage.
Conversely, device manufacturers have the right to restrict what operating systems can run on them. E.g. the majority of devices other than desktops and laptops.
Whether or not you should be able to run any software on any hardware is another debate. Even if you support that stance, there is a hard limit to user freedom via government regulations on hardware/software such as any RF transmitting device and cryptographic devices.
---
Google Android and iOS are regulated by governments.
With the upcoming age verification requirements made by governments (let’s not debate that here), only the corporate entities that governments can regulate will be allowed.
We can regulate to allow alternative Android OSes, but the alternatives will be ones that follow government regulations.
> Also, it's not the same as modifying the stock OS that does work with a non-stock OS that doesn't.
Again, the non-stock OS works, except for the parts that cannot work because they are being actively blocked. It's not that they are not ready: they are ready, but the mainstream players are blocking them.
> The hardware analogy would be closer to having a computer, replacing the GPU, then getting angry that there isn't a driver for the GPU that supports that operating system.
I disagree. It would be like having a computer, replacing the GPU with another GPU that is 100% compatible, but that doesn't run because the OS checks it and says "it would work, but it is not a GPU I like, so I will block it".
> Conversely, device manufacturers have the right to restrict what operating systems can run on them. E.g. the majority of devices other than desktops and laptops.
My point is that they shouldn't. I am saying that it would be better for society if we regulated that.
> We can regulate to allow alternative Android OSes, but the alternatives will be ones that follow government regulations.
Sure, I agree with that.
> My point is that they shouldn't. I am saying that it would be better for society if we regulated that.
Playing devil's advocate here. Why should software developers be allowed to restrict where/how their software is used, while hardware developers can't restrict where/how their hardware is used?
Yeah it's a good question, and in the end it's arbitrary. I would say:
1. Because e-waste.
2. Because if I buy shoes, I own the shoes. If I buy an electronic device, I own the electronic device. It should not be legal to add a mechanism in my shoes that allows the manufacturer to make them stop working as shoes whenever they want.
Hardware manufacturers don't open source their firmwares because they see it as a competitive advantage (why not, sometimes). But they should allow someone else to write their own firmware. That is, they should provide minimum support for that. Right now it's not that they don't provide minimum support: they actively work on making it technically impossible to do. And the law, through the DMCA and the likes, makes it illegal to reverse engineer.
Not sure what you are trying to say. My point is that technically, we have good alternatives. I am not talking Mobile Linux: we have Android alternatives that are indistinguishable from Stock Android to normal people... except for a few pain points.
We need to fight to address those pain points, in order to have good alternatives. What this article is trying to do is not trying to address those pain points at all, it's trying to change something in the Google flavour of Android. At the end of the day, it will still be the Google flavour of Android.
> why would a manufacturer
That's why I say we need to fight for regulating it. Technically, nothing prevents it. It's just that the manufacturers don't want or don't care. And it's not just manufacturers: banks that ban your OS if it's not "the Android signed by Google" are part of the problem as well, and we need to regulate that.
I agree with you, but even with the ability to install your own OS properly, you can't necessarily use some of the hardware.
As I recall from Ubuntu Touch, they had to build a system that was a thin wrapper around Android so that they had access to firmware blobs.
I guess that would still be ok as long as the hardware component manufacturers don't start to require authentication from the OS. That would be along the same lines as the fight you're describing.
I think that for the first step, we need to make sure that AOSP forks can work. And those can just copy the binary blobs.
Don't get me wrong: I like all alternatives. But the most realistic alternative to Stock Android is based on AOSP. In good approximation, today nobody would want anything else.
If we get there, then the next step is to get open source firmwares. But I don't know much about that and it feels like it is a much harder fight. Hardware manufacturers probably strongly believe that they will lose their competitive advantage if they open source their firmwares, and I don't know how true that is.
Do corporations dream about cyberpunk dystopia?
Sorry but what a ridiculous take. There are two phone options in the western world: iphone and android. 99.99% of the people aren't' going to even fathom they could install their own OS on a phone or whatever.
There is a clear MONOPOLY on phones and to even further take away the right to just install something on it is crazy. I already hate Apple for that, but there's no recourse in the monopolistic & capitalistic US and now it's going to be 100% gone.
"it should be fine for Google or Apple to do whatever they want with their OS"
Not when they are a MONOPOLY.
I’d say that it’s more of a cartel. The mobile network operators, the mobile device manufacturers, the mobile OS developers. They all work together in their consortiums to make money together.
It’s a bit obvious when you look at the supply chain where “competitors” supply each other with parts.
RF hardware is heavily regulated by governments, so a truly open-for-consumer hardware solution won’t exist.
When you buy an Android phone, the Stock OS you get is AOSP (the open source Android base) + Google stuff + Manufacturer stuff.
Now it sounds like you don't know about it, but if you take only AOSP and run it on your phone, you will not immediately notice that it is not "a normal Android you expect".
There are alternatives based on AOSP, e.g. GrapheneOS, LineageOS, /e/OS. To 99.99% of the people, those would count as Android. The difference between e.g. a FairPhone Android and a Samsung Android is not smaller than the difference between FairPhone Android and /e/OS.
What I am saying is that we should fight for those alternatives to run properly. Right now you may have heard that "it is not a full replacement because some things don't work". First, few things "don't work" (fewer than you may expect). Second (and more importantly), those few things that "don't work" are not the responsibility of those alternative OSes. It's precisely because Google + Android manufacturers prevent them from working that they don't.
I don't think it is such a ridiculous take. Rather, I feel like you just have no idea about how it works, and therefore you cannot imagine how there are alternatives to the situation you know.
Someone here on HN used the term "cloud terminal" for modern electronic devices, and I think that is a very fitting name for phones and tablets. They are definitely not computers because they do not actually give the user access to general purpose computing in the sense that the users can control exactly what computations the device is going to execute. They are just terminals whose production costs we cover but which are actually owned by the cloud providers.
Also: The internet is slowly turning into a handful of clouds, and it is only a matter of time before you cannot meaningfully host anything by yourself outside of these clouds because your cloud terminal will refuse to talk to it.
IDK, not really a fan of redefining computer to make a rhetorical point.
It seems counter-productive to tell people the computing device they think as a computer isn’t really a computer. It’s like saying my car isn’t really a car because I can’t adjust spark timing. Someone could make that semantic argument but it’s hard to imagine anyone would care.
Adjusting the spark timing is more a right to repair issue. If you replace the screen of your phone with one of a working phone do you expect it to work or do you need the approval from a licensed apple technician?
A taxi is still a car but we use a different word to differentiate the mode of operation. The difference in language infers different usage of the same machine.
Therefore going by car is understood as something different then going by taxi. In relation to this issue, it's like you rented a car but you get a taxi instead (selected operator controls the vehicle instead of you). Most people would not be pleased.
The problem being that phone or tablet is understood to be similar to computer while really they are not. So perhaps a different term to highlight this difference is not strange or counter-productive. Do you call your "smart tv" a computer in daily conversation?
>It’s like saying my car isn’t really a car because I can’t adjust spark timing.
What if it only drives along select predetermined monetised routes?
What if my aunt had three wheels?
I don’t see the value in hypotheticals like that. If the claim is that a computer is not really a computer unless every user can do any low level operations they want, is it also true that a car is not really a car unless every user can do any low level operations they want?
Manufacturers are taking away right to repair too! I think you picked a bad example. Back in the 60s you absolutely could change every low level component on a car.
Even a car that you are not allowed to drive at all is still a car. It just isn't your car.
Sure. But a taxi is a car yet it doesn't quite take up the same mental spots. People will say they came by taxi instead of by car. People won't say they don't see the value in selfdriving capabilities or repairability because they can just get a taxi. Etc
Exactly!
Our argument shouldn't be about the device's capabilities, but about its ownership. And increasingly, as this enshittification progresses, the person buying the device is becoming less and less its owner.
I think we call those buses, usually!
No, a Bus is a big car with more space for passengers. The Route has no relation to the naming.
That’s still a car.
You could own a race car that cannot legally be driven on any public roads and it’s still a car.
I agree with brookst that this sort of redefinition is a poor rhetorical tool.
Well it's still a vehicle but once something sufficiently deviates in form or function or the like it will no longer primarily be called that. People usually say they took a taxi for example rather saying they came by car even when every taxi is a car. Once that happens they start taking up different mental spots and comparisons between them start to make less and less sense. (saying you don't see the value of self driving capabilities because you can just get a taxi for example.)
> it will no longer primarily be called that
This isn’t relevant. Taxis are still cars and that’s something the vast majority of people would agree with. The fact that they have a more specific name doesn’t change anything.
A Bungalow is still a house. A skyscraper is still a building. A panini is still a sandwich. A taxi is still a car.
Then it's a streetcar
> IDK, not really a fan of redefining computer to make a rhetorical point.
Yes! This reminds me of Stallman who is in my opinion a visionary decades ahead of his time, but in terms of marketing he did that a lot and it ended up just distracting from the conversation. All of a sudden instead of discussing the actual issue, we're disussing rhetoric.
How about instead: is an e-bike a bicycle? Is it a motorcycle?
The apparent user experience between a computer and a mobile are markedly different - especially if you were a Windows user circa 10 years ago. If you were a Windows user in the 90's to 00's, it's nearly unrecognizable in how much ownership you feel over your own device.
Is it still a "car" if it only takes you to the train station and forces you to use public transport? "shuttle" might be more appropriate? Is it still your car if it leaves during the day and carries other people?
The meaning of words drifts when the situation changes.
Point taken. But I think we can say that smartphones and tablets are definitely not "general-purpose computers" because they are not programmable, at least not freely so.
But they are programmable, very freely even. Whether you can start any desired program on the device is the crucial point. Having gates, doesn't influence what's inside the gates.
I'm reminded of Zed Shaw's argument about how python3 should not be considered Turing-complete if it can't run python2 code. It was a fun rhetorical exaggeration that I felt helped clarify that it isn't unable to run python2 code, but rather that the people in charge decided that it shouldn't.
Speaking as someone who has built local-only apps (partially because I don’t want the hassle of maintaining a server):
There are plenty of useful apps that run locally on a phone. You can even run a whole LLM on your phone.
The shiniest and most popular apps are cloud terminals but the iPhone is actually a pretty darn powerful device.
> The shiniest and most popular apps are cloud terminals but the iPhone is actually a pretty darn powerful device.
They are powerful from a computational perspective, but the point was that it's a hassle to run a custom binary on them as compared to regular computers. You get a powerful device that is not flexible in this specific sense, so much of that power is not utilized
Plenty of useful apps != general purpose computing capabilities.
You are not allowed to run computations that have not been approved by Apple if you are using an iPhone. Yes, the hardware is powerful, but it is cryptographically locked down. It is physically local, but the control of the hardware is entirely non-local and 100% owned by Apple.
You can run arbitrary computations on iOS devices if they're written in JavaScript, WebAssembly, or Swift (via Playgrounds). All of these are Turing complete, and all three compile into machine code. What you don't have without an Apple developer account is direct machine code access.
Also note that apps like Pythonista allow you to write programs that call arbitrary Objective-C APIs without permission from Apple. This means that you have a Turing-complete language running unsigned code that can do anything a signed app can do. Your programs do, however, execute slowly.
unless you're using an API that requires an entitlement, you can still get an apple developer account and sign whatever code you want and run it on your devices.
Technically you don’t even need a dev account to run your own app. You need a dev account to distribute it in TestFlight and on the App Store.
You can install your own “Flip Off Steve Jobs” app directly from Xcode if you so desire.
So if they don't give you an apple dev account, or close yours, you can't.
Case in point.
Did you just move the goalposts from “you can’t run arbitrary code today” to “hypothetically, in the future, Apple could prevent running arbitrary code”?
As with Google accounts, it's not hypothetical, it's a risk. People do occasionally get locked out of being an Apple developer for reasons they cannot foresee.
> Apple has locked my Apple ID, and I have no recourse. A plea for help* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46252114
> Apple bans entire dev account, no reason given https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44601548
It’s still rhetorical sleight of hand.
I could have a stroke that leaves me unable to program. Does that mean I am not truly free to program today?
Those are risks, but they do not change the on-the-ground reality today, and the claim was that users, today, cannot use these device as general purpose computers.
We can use them today as general purpose computers, if we make a large effort to do so.
In my Linux and Mac, I dont think twice to quickly write a script to automate some pain-in-the-butt issues. But with my phone, it is pain-in-the-butt to write anything. It becomes not worth the effort.
Moreover, we can argue if technically it is a general purpose computer for whole day long. But that's not the point.
The point is that we are allowing gradually the big organizations to restrict general purpose computing, the internet and other previously free systems. It is happening slowly, where we can still give them the benefit of doubt. We are the frogs in the kettle where we are arguing that the temperature is just one degree more than earlier, so it is not actually boiling. We can keep on arguing about the temperature or step back and see the big picture where it is going.
No it's not. I need permission by a third-party to be able to program a device I supposedly own. I need to give them money, I need to give them my identity, and I need to tie my identity to any distribution of the software I make if other people are to be able to install it.
This is not a rhetorical sleight of hand, this is just saying that I am not truly in control of the device that I have bought.
The rhetorical sleight of hand is yours, by claiming that a device requiring pre-authorization (by virtue of needing a developer account) is an open computing platform.
No, hypothetically apple lets you run arbitrary code. In practice, they lock people out of their developer accounts all the time.
Anything that needs Apple to say "yes" before it runs is not "arbitrary."
> Someone here on HN used the term "cloud terminal" for modern electronic devices, and I think that is a very fitting name for phones and tablets.
Not really, at least not in the case of Android.
We have been able to install (and develop) software for these devices since day one. To me, that is pretty much a general purpose computer. The only real difference are peripherals, which is better suited for content consumption than creation. Even then, it is trivial to add a keyboard, mouse, or printer. Other forms of I/O are "walled off" behind permissions, but most of those have to do with privacy (very few computers have things like GPS, accelerometers, etc.). The big difference after that is the cellular modem, where security is a big concern. Yet that mostly affects phones.
I'm not sure I would even agree with it in the case of iOS. The distinguishing difference between iOS and Android is that the development and distribution of third-party software is restricted by the vendor. I don't think that makes it any less of a computer.
Contrast that to the typical ereader. Technically it is a general purpose computer, but most ereaders are developed to support a singular purpose. You aren't going to be installing third-party apps in the course of normal usage.
Well, they can do computing, but it's awkward and most people don't use them for that, it's true.
The question of ownership is interesting. If I buy a chair, it doesn't make a very good table, does that mean I don't own it? Most people don't know what general purpose computing is. To them a cloud terminal is a computer. So, to them, they do own their devices because that's all they are.
I feel like some of us think we got close, or anywhere near, what Stallman has been advocating for most of his life. But I'm afraid we didn't. We all chose convenience. We chose to believe that one man was enough to hold back the tide against enormously powerful corporations and governments. Some even turned their back on Stallman. And some even work for the enemy.
We haven't really lost anything here. It's just becoming more clear what we actually have.
We did not all choose convenience over freedom, but the majority did. Those of us who chose freedom were still able to participate in digital society, albeit with a bit of added inconvenience, but this is becoming increasingly difficult as cloud terminal use is becoming a prerequisite for doing banking, using public transport or even verifying your age on the internet.
The chair analogy is a bit weird, because I am actually free to buy a chair, disassemble it and somehow use it as a table if my needs for a table for some weird reason happens to coincide with the form factor of the chair. I don't think the analogy really works, but if a chair worked as a modern phone then it would be built with one-way screws and in general be built to lose structural integrity if you try to disassemble it.
A better analogy is roads. Anyone can put any car on the public roads (they may be breaking the law if the car is not legal). But we are moving towards a world where the roads will slash the tires of any car which isn't approved by Ford or Tesla. Ford and Tesla didn't build the roads, but they somehow took over the control of them.
A phone is a computer whose creator is incentivized to make it pretend it isn't a computer, because it harms profits if they don't.
Increasingly, so is the government, because freedom of computing is incompatible with surveillance, age verification etc.
>The question of ownership is interesting. If I buy a chair, it doesn't make a very good table, does that mean I don't own it?
A better comparison is buying a chair where the seller gets to aprove who sits and when.
Not really. My point is people don't even think they're buying a general purpose computer because they don't know what that is. They are buying a cloud terminal and it works as a cloud terminal. You might think of your smartphone as a computer, but you're wrong. So it's a chair and anyone can sit on it, it's just not a table. It never was.
Indeed, and think how much more secure this is for Grandma! What if a scammer comes over and wants to sit? Won't somebody please think of Grandma
Super predictable for HN to trot out the "tablets and phones aren't computers" line.
It's still wrong. Countless people use them for all their computing needs. Overwhelmingly, though, these people are not the sort to comment on HN. They are Regular People, not Professional Computer Touchers, and their needs are absolutely met.
> they do not actually give the user access to general purpose computing in the sense that the users can control exactly what computations the device is going to execute
What prevents the creation of an App that allows one to do exactly that?
Google approval policy may prevent that now or retroactively.
The official store won't accept it and you can't sideload it.
You can in fact side load it. There are no restrictions on apps loaded via adb. The 24H restriction period on side loading only applies to apps retrieved by other means.
Oh wow, you can sideload it? Amazing. All grandma has to do is install Android Studio, enable developer mode, tap the build number seven times, flip on USB debugging, plug into a laptop, accept an RSA key fingerprint, and pop open a terminal. You know, the way normal people install apps.
>> they do not actually give the user access to general purpose computing in the sense that the users can control exactly what computations the device is going to execute
i don't think we were talking about grandma use case
Its hyperbolic but hits the point.
I've helped multiple coworkers (in a non-computer related field) sideload F-Droid for a few spyware/ad free apps they liked the look of.
Id sideload my own phone using adb but I'd tell them theyre out of luck.
> it is only a matter of time before you cannot meaningfully host anything by yourself outside of these clouds because your cloud terminal will refuse to talk to it.
That's well on its way. Try to log into your bank (or countless other sites) using a VPN. They flat out turn you away. If you don't use VPN but use a different computer or connection you get grilled with "prove you're a human". I get that they are doing anti spam and fraud steps, but the logical conclusion of where this ends up is "if we don't recognize you from our mountains of tracking info we've been compiling, we don't want to do business with you".
Let me play out a scenario, imagine to use a Desktop Hardware like a complete built rig, you would need a specific OS like Windows 11 and you could not run Linux on it, just because it's a vendor lock-in.
Why is this acceptable for phones but would not for the case above?
I know a lot of people don't care, and that's ok, but we should root for an open choice for the users.
> Why is this acceptable for phones but would not for the case above?
PCs happened by accident.
Before the PC, people had TVs - devices not for creating, but for passively consuming content made by big corporations and the state. And we had games consoles - devices not for creating, but for playing games made by a medium-sized company, with strict approval by a huge company (who want a cut). Strictly censored to be age-appropriate, naturally. Pirate radio? Straight to jail.
Before that people had newspapers - media for passively consuming, intended for mass readership, written at the behest of rich newspaper barons with certain political opinions they're keen to push.
And after the PC, we have smartphones - devices not for creating, but for consuming content feeds, curated by big corporations, with rich owners with certain political opinions they're keen to push. A huge company eager to take a cut. A tiny screen, and a keyboard that puts curly braces three keypresses deep. Can't even debug a web page without connecting to a PC. And soon to be strictly censored to be age-appropriate.
The PC is really the outlier here.
Alongside TV we had cameras, and families across the country filming birthdays and other special occasions.
Alongside newspapers we had 'zine culture and mail-order pamphlets.
There has always been the option to contribute - the Apple iPhone is quite possibly the first exception.
You could film and put it on your tv, but you couldn’t create and distribute to the medium at large
Not with the same reach, but some people kinda could! Specifics depended on where you were in the world, but it existed and to some extent still does. In spite of a very rough decade and a half since 2010 culling many of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-access_television https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_television_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swindon_Viewpoint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_television_in_Austra...
Weirdo eccentrics sure found a way to distribute their shot on home video b-movies.
And you can still use the camera app to post your pictures to social media. It's hardly the same level of creative participation that the PC invites.
That's really not true at all. Are you aware of the entire home computer industry of the 70s and 80s? Before PCs, you had a beige box you plugged into your TV and typed in games line by line out of a magazine. They DIY scene was enormous as a percentage of total users.
They also blur the line between "computer" and "console", since the NES is practically the same architecture as many contemporary "computers". Homebrew games existed, and weren't that far out of reach. Homebrew has existed on pretty much every console ever.
PCs weren't an accident in any way. They are a direct descendant of "home computers". That's why they were called "personal computers" in the first place.
I think this was because of the “IBM PC Compatible” market. IBM was using off-the-shelf components for its PC system and other manufacturers reverse engineered and cloned the system and started selling IBM clones. Interestingly Microsoft who controlled the OS became the monopoly and gatekeeper of that market, not IBM (hardware). MS was making a ton of money by selling OS licenses and online software stores was not a thing since the Internet was nonexistent/limited. “Developers, developers, developers” were the king in that business model so they didn’t need to give a cut to MS or IBM to build on a PC system.
Saying that I think the situation in the smartphones today is less about the business model and more about control and surveillance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible
It’s the same situation as game consoles. Custom built hardware that is only meant to run the one specific vendor OS. There have been many other computing devices like that in the past as well. The general purpose desktop computer that allows a choice of operating systems is actually less common than the other way. Historically, people didn’t expect to run alternate operating systems on a mainframe, 80s and 90s computers like a Commodore 64, Power PC Macs, Amigas and DOS/Windows machines until Linux came along.
That’s odd, because I remember being a user of MUSIC on the university System/360. I imagine it also sounds odd to all those people who ran AT&T Unix on their PDP/11 systems instead of a Digital OS like RTS/11. Or the people who ran Xenix on their PCs. Or the folks like me who installed OS/2 on what was sold as an MS-DOS machine. Then there were the folks who ran A+ on their Atari.
Oh yeah, odd. Anyway, I’m aware of alternate mainframe OSs but I’m not sure how common using one was. Other than OS2, alternate OSs for other systems were rather rare, though it is worth noting that they were not forbidden or blocked.
> I’m aware of alternate mainframe OSs but I’m not sure how common using one was.
Extremely common at major universities and research centres. CTSS, ITS, TENEX, Multics, Unix and even VM/370 were all alternate operating at some point.
> Other than OS2, alternate OSs for other systems were rather rare,
You weren't there, were you? A lot of people replaced MS-DOS with DR-DOS before Microsoft deliberately broke it with Windows. A little later, a number of people were running Unix System V on their PCs, to the extent that there was a regular column about Unix in Byte.
Didn’t Microsoft somehow ruin Dr DOS? Not technically, but didn’t they sue them or something? Which would mean this is the same issue, 40 years later. Yes, I was there on the 80s, but I had a Commodore 64. We did use GEOS, if that counts. I was not present for the 70s.
> Didn’t Microsoft somehow ruin Dr DOS?
They added some obfuscated code to Windows 3.1 that made it refuse to run on DR-DOS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code
> at major universities and research centres
So not common outside of ivory towers, no?
That was a huge fraction of computing at the time. Before 1992 or so, the only people I was aware of that was into computers were all associated with a University. Typewriters were still actually very common.
Before IBM PC computer's weren't particularly commonplace outside of ivory towers either.
You're forgetting the big three, all of which predated the 5150 PC - Commodore PET, Apple II, and TRS-80.
I went to a regional state university. We had an older IBM mainframe with a hypervisor and the students and faculty were all users on MUSIC/OS. This was in the early/mid 1990s.
Steam Deck exists and works quite well. No lock-in necessary.
So you mean, Macs and macOS?
All modern devices are appliances, not computers.
They perform the specific functions that they were programmed to perform, and do not allow arbitrary execution of calculations on the underlying hardware.
Many people, mostly folks who adopt the Apple ecosystem, see this as a positive thing that allows them to delegate undifferentiated decisions on security and ways of working to the vendor.
I am one of those people and hope that Android remains open so that people don't expect Apple open up their hardware, which will result in fragmentation.
You can absolutely install Linux on a Mac. Back before Apple made custom CPUs they supported and even advertised installing Windows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Camp_(software)
> They perform the specific functions that they were programmed to perform
That's the thing. You may have bought a device that was meant to perform a task but after some time the company decides that now it should do a different task. I think that's what stops making you the owner. You can't really choose what to do with it.
You _can_ run other OSes on Macbooks. They're not locked in at all, it's simply that the drivers aren't open source and the hardware is undocumented, but with enough effort (e.g. Asahi) you can run technically anything on it.
all appliances used to come with schematics and repair manuals, there was no prevention of modification or repair. We're talking cars, washing machines, dryers, radios etc.
Separate from computers and phones locking down devices is a much wider issue, usually it is only implemented to reduce liability of the manufacturer or to allow for planned obsolescence.
>which will result in fragmentation.
Why? And how does that bother you?
Because phones aren’t computers first and foremost. It can be hard to see it at this forum, but phones aren’t computers, they are intended to be general purpose devices to solve a set of problems for the vast majority of people on the planet. And a subset of those problems involve things like money and personal information. So the device needs to be secure, even (perhaps especially) from the end user themself because it needs to try to withstand compromise even when the user is drunk or sad or in a rush.
I am not arguing you need to like where this has led, but you have people in sibling comment threads here arguing we need to push back on things assuming you will use a phone when the whole revolution has been getting most of the world online by making phones widely available.
I think historically it has existed like this due to regulation regarding radio sending equipment and the integration between the platform (CPU) and modem in phones.
Due to this the equipment manufacturers where never incentivized to have a "open" ecosystem for the CPU+modem combo. That's why there is no OS war on a per device basis, most phones supports 1 OS officially.
The vendor lock-in scenario for desktop hardware already exists with the latest x86 generation of gaming consoles. Gaming consoles are locked down because the hardware is subsidized with the expectation of revenue from the digital marketplaces they provide.
The yet-to-be-released Steam Machine is not subsidized and is unlocked. Steam is a OS agnostic digital marketplace, so it doesn't matter what OS you install on the machine.
Microsoft doesn't see a threat in allowing other OSes on their Surface hardware because the majority of their revenue comes from M365.
It's just market forces really. In the end, phones provide enough utility for the majority of users while being locked down. There's nothing stopping you from buying a fully-open phone, but there's just very little utility in it for the majority of users.
We have vendor locked-in hardware as well (blowing fuses on threadripper/epyc to disable running on a different mainboard)
> we should root for an open choice for the users
I see what you did there... and agree completely. If you don't have root, it's not yours. All my Androids (none from this decade) are rooted and I plan to keep them that way.
No need to play this scenario in your head, here it is in the real world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT
Few interested hardware vendors, discontinued after 4 years. "mixed reviews at launch, while critics and analysts deemed it to be commercially unsuccessful"
Windows 10 S was another attempt that "Similarly [restricts] software installation to applications obtained via Windows Store." Cancelled after one year.
Exactly the fate I wish upon closed ecosystems. The only question is why iOS is different. I am inclined to say it's the brand status that overpriced luxury goods have that draws rich people initially, making it lucrative and perhaps even a tad prestigious to be there, but surely it's more than that?
I think it’s because the Microsoft Store barely has any apps that users use. The Microsoft Store didn't support the Win32 API, so developers had to rewrite their apps.
iOS was a new SDK from the start.
Wait, you lost me somewhere. The MS store didn't support the old way of doing things, people had to rewrite their software; yet iOS was... new as well? People had to start from scratch and so that worked?
Sorry, the statements were a bit disjointed.
iOS existed before the Microsoft Store. The apps developed were brand new. No backlash from a new SDK and platform.
Windows RT is closer to iPadOS though. For iPadOS, apps just worked since it’s based off of iOS.
The Microsoft Store only supported a new half-baked SDK that limited what applications were capable of. Developers already had Win32 apps and rewriting them with the new SDK seemed pointless just to support what seemed like a needless limitation.
In general, vendor lock in is the natural state, especially under capitalism. Being able to (so easily) install Linux on a PC is an exception.
On the topic of Windows, it took lawsuits to allow OEM's and users to remove IE.
Open choice will always be an uphill battle.
If computers were invented by the Silicon Valley of the 2020s, this would absolutely be the case.
To be fair, many early computers were tied to the OS.
But they didn't have technology yet to do it properly, so it was trivial for people to sever the tie and install alternative OSes - trivial enough that it was also easy to teach others how to do it.
Now, the tech to make that tie near-unbreakable exists.
Can you install an alternate os on the original Mac or a C64?
I was only aware of that possibility for pc clones
I briefly tried some flavour of linux on a Performa 5200, PPC chip.
Here's an alternative OS for the C64, though I no longer have such a machine to try it on: https://www.c64-wiki.com/wiki/Contiki
[dead]
[flagged]
A GrapheneOS phone is just as open as the Librem 5. They both use proprietary blobs and hardware. Librem just tries to hide that fact.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47935853#47943179
GrapheneOS is probably more secure also.
> A GrapheneOS phone is just as open as the Librem 5.
No, it's not. Try to run a completely free OS on you hardware (like Replicant) and watch the lack of camera, GPS and more.
Related discussion for other: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47942070
The Librem 5 uses a bottom of the barrel, standard industrial CPU from 2017 with no updates. It is no more open than a Google Pixel or any other mobile device. it lacks proper updates, isolated radios, and any form of hardening. The kill switches are also useless if your device is fully compromised and turned into a spying device, all of your data is already gone. The only thing the switches do as a last resort is block voice recording, which is an improper way of doing it since speakers are essentially just microphones in reverse.
> CPU from 2017 with no updates
This is false. Please stop writing false statements without any links. NXP promises to produce the i.MX 8M Quad until Jan. 2033. The support will be even longer.
> it lacks proper updates
This is FUD.
> isolated radios
They are isolated with USB. This might be slightly weaker than IOMMU, but for me the benefit of freedom is worth it. There is no shared memory.
> it lacks proper updates, isolated radios, and any form of hardening
FUD and false information. Please stop this.
> The kill switches are also useless if your device is fully compromised
This is false again. It doesn't matter how much my device might be compromised. The attacker will not get any access to the shut down sensors, radios or voice/video, if I use the three kill switches.
> since speakers are essentially just microphones in reverse
Librem 5 speakers do not support this.
Not OP, but
> This is false. Please stop writing false statements without any links. NXP promises to produce the i.MX 8M Quad until Jan. 2033. The support will be even longer.
I think they meant that the processor itself is old. It supports ARMv8 and is lacking the enhanced memory protection and execution features of the ARMv9-A processors on newer phones.
> This is false again. It doesn't matter how much my device might be compromised. The attacker will not get any access to the shut down sensors, radios or voice/video, if I use the three kill switches.
The problem is that your device can be compromised quite easily and without you knowing. The kill switches are moot at that point.
The kill switches will work independently on a compromise. Why are they moot? Also, it's possible to completely reflash the device in case of doubt.
"quite easily" strongly depends on what exactly you are doing. For example, if I use Firefox with NoScript, then it is not very easy.
> The kill switches will work independently on a compromise. Why are they moot?
Kill switches only work as a security feature when you activate them before you know you're compromised. But that's impossible.
It's a reactive "security" feature not a proactive one.
> For example, if I use Firefox with NoScript, then it is not very easy.
Security vulnerabilities aren't only JS related.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2026-3...
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2026-3...
Adding an extension that can access all your browsing data doesn't seem very secure either.
Required permissions:
- Access browser tabs
- Access browser activity during navigation
- Access your data for all websites
Good links, thank you. I agree that my protection is not perfect in general. Fortunately I do not open random websites on my phone; I have my laptop with Qubes OS for that.
> Adding an extension that can access all your browsing data doesn't seem very secure either.
This is not just a random extension but an officially recommended one, https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/recommended-extensions-.... It's also regularly verified by the community. I trust it as I trust Firefox.
> Fortunately I do not open random websites on my phone
That's the main use for almost everyone. You're suggesting people use a less secure device and are stating that it's more secure if they don't use it in the way it's mostly used?
That doesn't sound like freedom. That sounds like living in paranoia. You bring up FUD in so many comments, but you seem to be living it. Ironically though, you choose to use systems that enable FUD when there are systems that let you not worry.
There are people building secure software and hardware, so people don't have to live in fear when using their devices. That's the freedom that many people care about.
There's the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot. Most people don't care about that.
You missed that I do not recommend Librem 5 to "almost everyone". We are not on a normies forum but on HN.
Also, I do not recommend Librem 5, when somebody asks for a secure device. I mention it, when somebody asks about alternatives to the duopoly, a possibility to have a full, general-purpose computer in a pocket allowing you to tinker with it, or wants to run GNU/Linux baremetal. Such people aren't the audience of GrapheneOS anyway.
And I'm not against GrapheneOS. I never said it was less secure than Librem 5 for typical tasks. I only say, that if you want to have a third option, you can have it today. There will be compromises, which can be dealt with by technical users.
> We are not on a normies forum but on HN.
Being on HN does not mean that you are familiar with the intricacies of hardware and low-level software.
> I only say, that if you want to have a third option, you can have it today. There will be compromises, which can be dealt with by technical users.
I think it’s irresponsible to promote it as an alternative device without noting that it’s less secure and full of footguns. Also, disingenuous to promote it as FOSS when it only fits that definition under FSF technicalities. And lastly, to promote it as more open than phones with AOSP distros that utilize the same set of proprietary hardware, just with different communication mechanisms/boundaries.
This is not a forum with legal advises. I inform people about an option, which they asked for. GNU/Linux phones have a similar security approach to GNU/Linux on desktop. People explicitly seeking GNU/Linux should know this. They can also ask or search the Internet.
> I think it’s irresponsible to promote it as an alternative device without noting that it’s less secure and full of footguns
I disagree with you here. Informing about options is better than not informing. "Less secure" depends on a threat model. GNU/Linux on desktop is working well enough for millions of people. So it is a viable security approach for many. Saying that your threat model is the only one that should exist and be promoted is crazy.
> only fits that definition under FSF technicalities
This is one of the strictest definitions there is. By which definition does GrapheneOS run FLOSS?
> same set of proprietary hardware, just with different communication mechanisms/boundaries
More choice is always good, isn't it? If it is not for you, you are free to use and promote the duopoly. (Yes, I consider AOSP obeying Google's development strategy long term. It will not end well. See: this topic.)
Relevant conversation about those technicalities: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30042576
Though with a username of fsflover, I think you'll be biased.
Also, another relevant thread (that you were even a part of!) discussing the pointlessness of what Purism did to fit the technicalities: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841267
It's actually worse than I thought. There's the initramfs /lib/firmware loading workaround for the FSF certification of the OS.
But even before that there is code run by the main CPU that loads instructions for the secondary core to load a blob from separate flash memory to pass to the memory controller to initialize it.
All that just to attempt to fit the technicalities of the FSF RYF hardware certification while still loading a blob like every other phone microprocessor.
---
It's interesting that I could make a device that burns efuses to make it obsolete and it could still be considered FSF Respects Your Freedom certified.
> Kill switches only work as a security feature when you activate them before you know you're compromised. But that's impossible.
Indeed, if you use the kill switches in a stupid way, you get no benefit from them. I use them whenever I want to be sure that I can't be tracked or listened to, either because of a potentially compromised device or closed modem that can connect to towers without my knowledge. In other words, they are a proactive feature. I can get 100% privacy whenever I want, independently on any software, which in principle might always get secretly compromised one way or another. Even the amazing, secure GrapheneOS!
How can you be sure your modem on GrapheneOS doesn't send your location to the mothership all the time, even in an "airplane mode"?
Quite frankly, the whole Librem ecosystem is significantly less "open" than GrapheneOS or any desktop Linux variant to anyone who look at things objectively instead of using weird FSF semantics.
Instead of loading firmware in sensible manner like GrapheneOS or desktop Linux distros with the linux-firmware package, they keep PureOS "free of blobs" by having the bootloader inject all of the blobs into memory in an extremely shady manner. Since when was having the bootloader tamper with system memory about freedom and openness?
Oh, and they even have the audacity to market this as the "firmware jail" as if it is any more contained than the linux-firmware package too. Truly impressive stuff.
> Quite frankly, the whole Librem ecosystem is significantly less "open" than GrapheneOS or any desktop Linux variant to anyone who look at things objectively instead of using weird FSF semantics.
You will have a point when your Google phone runs Replicant. Now this is just empty words, i.e., FUD. Which blobs are running on the Librem 5 CPU? Which blobs are running on GrapheneOS CPU?
Which blobs are running on the Librem 5 CPU? Which blobs are running on GrapheneOS CPU?
Both the Pixel and Librem 5 have firmware baked into the SoC that is executed.
On GrapheneOS, the firmware is signed and updated along with the OS.
On the Librem 5, the firmware for Wifi/Bluetooth is stored on a NOR chip, which is read from and mounted into the OS by the initramfs into /lib/firmware.
Not-withstanding the above, Librem 5 components such as the USB controller, touch screen controller, radios, battery, etc simply have closed-source firmware baked in (stored on some flash chip on these components), but it doesn't mean that they are not there or in use.
In both cases, components either do not get proper firmware updates from the OS, or they are too old/low quality to get any firmware updates from the vendors to begin with. Storing firmware on the component is also a less secure approach than having signed firmware loaded by the OS, as it now means that these components have persistent storage which can be attacked.
Aside from all of the above, they also use a dedicated CPU core to run firmware blobs for things like memory training.
In essence, what the Librem 5 has achieved is shuffling proprietary firmware storage around instead of eliminating their existence or execution. It is not any more "free" or "open" than anyone else while also being less secure.
You keep repeating this everywhere. Consider reading what a Librem 5 developer says instead, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943487
Also, Librem 5 has "proper" firmware updates (whatever that means). Please do not spread false information.
Since you copy pasta your response, I will link to my other comment and do a bit of copy pasta here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47953726
It is exactly how it works. Read the actual code for yourself: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/librem5-fw-jail/-/blob/pureos...
If you can't read code, here is the marketing material: https://puri.sm/posts/shipping-new-sparklan-wifi-cards-with-...
If you don't know that the firmware for components/peripherals can either be uploaded to them by Linux or just stored on some flash chip on the component, read: https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-library/refer...
> Which blobs are running on the Librem 5 CPU?
https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/fw
https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/fw/firmware-librem5-nonfree
https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/librem5-fw-jail/-/tree/pureos...
> Which blobs are running on GrapheneOS CPU?
Depends on the phone. Arguably though, GrapheneOS has the legacy of years of thousands of security researchers working to secure Android from third-party network and GNSS modules.
---
Just so you know, I'm not using Librem or GrapheneOS. I'm looking at this objectively and have no skin in the game.
In this case I do not understand why you are ignoring the words of a Librem 5 developer saying that no blobs are running on the main CPU: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943487
I'll take his word that no blobs are running on the main CPU. But the process itself is error prone. It's mounting flash storage with blobs into the filesystem of the OS. The OS can load modules directly from the storage.
> There is not a single non-free blob in the OS that runs there once the bootloader is up (unless you put some there by yourself, which you're of course free to do).
"unless you put some there by yourself, which you're of course free to do" also means unless someone else puts one there.
---
I think the "firmware jail" loader also uses Smart Direct Memory Access (SDMA)?
---
You can run blobs on the main CPU with strong isolation with TEE and other hardware security features.
The SOC still has firmware baked in as per usual.
And the firmware for Bluetooth/Wifi is loaded in by having the initramfs read it from the NOR flash, mount it in /lib/firmware, then it is business as usual like a desktop Linux distribution.
It's not something special. It's just a hackjob. They shuffle the files around and made it much harder to update.
https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/librem5-fw-jail/-/blob/pureos...
https://puri.sm/posts/shipping-new-sparklan-wifi-cards-with-...
You keep repeating this everywhere. Consider reading what a Librem 5 developer says instead, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943487
Why do you copy paste the same thing over and over a bunch of times? Linking to an irrelevant post doesn't change how it works.
Read the code posted above.
> The open open choice already exists.
Unfortunately, not in my country.
> Sent from my Librem 5 running GNU/Linux.
Can I buy a Librem 5 here in Brazil? (Unless it has ANATEL certification, which I doubt it has, buying online from outside the country is not an option, since it will be rejected by customs.)
From the state's perspective, probably along the same lines as why long guns are allowed with permit in many countries where handguns are banned.
Because you can conceiled carry a smartphone? Please explain.
Yes? Modern portable computing enables counter-surveillance of police, better communication and knowledge access for dissidents, and interface with institutional computer systems for any number of ends. The George Floyd protests don't happen if the bystanders didn't have smartphones, or if protestors had to carry around an Alienware tower; the Snowden leaks don't happen at the magnitude they did without memory miniaturization. There are international examples, too, and commensurate crackdowns on computing freedom (particularly in Hong Kong).
You've got a supercomputer and a library and a set of video production equipment in your pocket, among other things. The capabilities of such a device are fundamentally different from something that's tethered to a desk or that's conspicuous when out-and-about. The idea of it being open and untrackable is exciting for some and terrifying for others.
Out of all the things that have computational power, PC is pretty much the only one that comes with a built-in way to replace its own system. Xbox, PlayStation, Telsa, Smart Fridges, etc. don't have this ability from the beginning.
So yeah, the society has largely accepted this. PC is the exception.
This is the most important part:
>> Developers
Do not sign up. Don't join the program by signing up for the Android Developer Console and agreeing to their irrevocable Terms and Conditions. Don't verify your identity. Don't play ball.
Google's plan only works if developers comply. Don't.
Talk other developers and organizations out of signing up. Add the FreeDroidWarn library to your apps to warn users. Run a website? Add the countdown banner.
This is the part that makes the least sense. It shows a profound lack of empathy. For many devs this is equivalent to saying "Give up your livelihood to show you support this principle, that will likely have little to no effect". This is advice aimed at wealthy hobbyists.
What's worse is that it's not even a principled view. If you really don't trust Google, then you shouldn't rely on Google's software no matter what policies they change or promises they make. The problem is actually far more profound, that citizens are now expected to have a closed smartphone from one of the duopolies which government and corporate entities need to trust, which means they cannot allow it to be entirely your device. This is a tacit policy that must be defeated as a policy matter.
Lack of empathy better describes Google's psychopathic pursuit of ever more control over its users, while the products get ever more enshittified of course.
Two things can be true at once.
That's not the solution - developers or businesses are squeezed into signing up anyway to survive/make a profit. The only viable alternative is to create an alternative - Linux phones.
I agree. There isn't even a need to create alternative OSes: they exist. Be it Linux phones or (more realistically for the vast majority of users) AOSP-based OSes like GrapheneOS and LineageOS.
The real problem is that:
1. Most manufacturers prevent us from unlocking the bootloader, adding custom signing keys and relocking it. Interestingly the Google Pixels allow that. This should be mandatory.
2. Many apps choose to ban alternative OSes by use of Play Integrity, i.e. checking that the OS is signed by Google. This should be illegal.
3. Bonus: it should be mandatory for manufacturers to make it reasonably easy to support from an alternative OS. That means publishing device trees, for instance. This should be mandatory.
I really believe we should fight for that. Then we wouldn't have to care about what Google does on their side.
Unfortunately not gonna work.
Developers either want to make money or work for someone who wants to make money.
In either case they will be forced to.
Lots of nay-sayers to this, but yes, strikes do work and it's one of the very few real tools for change that people have.
I think you are right and I voted your contribution up. But you don't really think it will work? Developers were kings once. Big companies turned them into slaves.
To be sincere, they were never truly ours. A proof of that is they were able to come up with this, and you don't have a way to reject it.
What we actually need are (open) alternatives, not to double down on Google's ecosystem and Google-controlled OS. We need to control the device we bought and be able to run whatever we wish on it. Just like we do on PCs.
https://postmarketos.org is working on developing a Linux distribution for mobile devices (including smartphones), aligned with these goals: free open source software, empowering users to control their own devices.
I won't deny that a lot of application support still needs more work. But this is definitely moving in the right direction.
Is it time to bring back the Windows phone?
I keed I keed!
But unfortunately there really isn't a great alternative. I painfully attempted to use Ubuntu Touch and its always the same thing. The lack of available apps, the lack of app development in general for the platform was pretty eye opening. Add in having it only run on really old devices isn't much help either. Its promising, but a long ways off even from some of the non-standard roms I've used like Evolution X which is a Lineage fork.
If this really does cripple a lot of the known custom roms out there without any solid alternatives other than Graphene? It could really be a huge turning point.
I wouldn’t mind a 64-bit build of Symbian or WebOS on my phone, actually. Or, hell, Plan 9.
We need a Wine-like compatibility layer for android alternatives
doesn't waydroid already do this? is that how sailfish does it?
Yes, I have been able to run Android applications within Waydroid on my phone for years now (as long as they don't require attestation). But that's not how Sailfish does it, they have their own proprietary implementation.
Security is essential for an appliance like a smart phone. I fight the general purpose computing battle on my desktop with Linux, but on my phone I just need something that won’t be hacked.
I really don't understand this mentality at all. Freedom is about the ability to do more stuff, not the requirement to do more stuff. Meaning, everything you want to do with a locked down phone, you can do with an open one.
There's no, like, gun to your head saying you HAVE to side load apps. You can just... not... do that. If you think side loading is insecure. You can download 100% of your apps from the play store. In fact, that's what 95% of people do.
I mean, what's the threat model here? That you somehow forget your own belief about side loading being insecure and then accidently side load an app? Does that even seem possible?
I can kind of understand this argument for granny who doesn't know where she is. Kind of. But for you, it makes no sense. I mean really, think about what you're saying here about you as a computer user or even as a person.
Hey, I’ve side loaded and F-Droided and all that. But here’s the thing: I just need the phone to work, minimally spy on me, and not turn into some horrible malware sinkhole. Google and their OEM ecosystem lost my confidence on all three counts.
One thing I used to side load or F-Droid was a keyboard, to circumvent what I perceived as privacy violations. But my selection Year 0 got forked or disappeared by Year 2, idk when or why, and thats a glaring security or privacy risk that I don’t have time to monitor and figure.
I actually thought Google’s solution in the article was charming— toggle developer mode. If you’re in developer mode you know you’ve got something to monitor and mitigate. Smartphones just aren’t powerful enough to use for their own defense at a consumer level against professionalized hackers, and from a product positioning perspective Google’s move is completely defensible.
Well people can be tricked into sideloading apps if it’s possible.
To be clear I’m totally on your side and I think that’s a ridiculous reason to not have an open system, but let’s not pretend it’s not a possibility because doing so harms our otherwise very solid argument
It is definitely a possibility, for granny like I pointed out. Not for this person, who is aware of the risk and does not want to side load apps.
Like I said, they would have to somehow forget their own beliefs. Doesn't seem likely to me.
If you look at the workflows for these changes, you'll notice that some of them are actually there to prevent you from doing stuff under duress.
Like it or not, if one wants security some freedom will need to be moved elsewhere.
And since the market is heading that way, the only thing we can do is form an android sandbox SIG and maintain a fork for enthusiasts.
Let's not be naive by pretending improving user security is the main purpose of that move.
May or may not be. It does significantly improve security.
I miss data to confirm any of this does significantly improve security.
Anecdata: I have yet to meet someone who have been targeted by unknowingly side-loading apps.
If they really want to improve security they can work on much more impactful changes. I know people having been scammed by ads proudly delivered by instagram and google. I read about malicious apps that somehow went through official store filtering.
They're doing good work on those fronts as well, but in war you don't win all the battles.
It's also especially difficult to tighten security in the direction your money is coming from.
Android has no such constraints
Great for you. But what about the rest of us?
I've resigned to the fact that I'll need to use two phones, one with locked down Android/iOS for banking applications and government services (those require strong bank ID around these parts), another with some kind of a Linux or unlocked Android for literally everything else. Oh well, such is life, most people don't care enough about this to pressure Google/Apple/banks/governments into yielding.
A big reason why a non-locked-down OS is absolutely vital to me is that sometimes I (reluctantly) have to travel to places where I need to install obscure VPN/proxy services to be able to access international internet. Most services present in app stores have been banned for years now, and the government sometimes even succeeds in making Apple/Google remove the more effective ones from the stores.
What we need to push back on is making a phone a requirement to do routine banking and conducting other necessary business. There is no reason I should be required to have a phone in order to query my balance or transfer money to someone, when I have a perfectly good computer sitting here.
The physical keys, like Yubico, help with that. However, I have not been convinced that a password manager with unique, strong passwords on all my accounts shouldn't suffice. I don't know why I have to be penalized because other users don't use best practices.
Bank apps in India don't run on rooted phones, need developer mode and adb disabled. At the same time, their website works fine on Firefox on Linux where I can literally go through all their front-end source, attach and run debuggers.
What even is going on? Why are banks doing this security theatre when all their apps are doing is calling some backend apis?
I think most bank apps in the western world also refuse to run on rooted phones. To my pleasant surprise my banking app worked on GrapheneOS though.
In my informed opinion, anybody who does banking on their phone is taking a big and unnecessary risk. I wish I could say more.
> anybody who does banking on their phone is taking a big and unnecessary risk
It is not necessarily a matter of choice. Besides what the other commenter notes about 2FA, in some countries banks have been removing functionality from their online-banking website, and you can only do certain things in the phone app.
> in some countries banks have been removing functionality from their online-banking website, and you can only do certain things in the phone app.
The most infuriating I've seen, is a bank which removed the anual tax report (which you need to do the anual income tax) from the online-banking website, requiring you to use the phone app... to download a PDF file, which you then have to transfer to the computer anyway so you can print it!
Fwiw, iOS lets you print to network attached printers directly, no macOS needed.
You can print from your phone, and also you probably don't even need to print it.
This annoys me to no end. I have an old phone that I boot up occasionally because it holds all the apps that I only need once per year for a niche feature that is only accessible in their app. I don't need 200 apps on my main that I would otherwise never open.
I see you suggest you can't say more, but I'll still ask the questions:
Is it a privacy or financial risk to have banking on your phone?
How is banking on a phone app more dangerous than banking via mobile or desktop websites?
It is a privacy risk, a financial risk, and a security risk.
The issue is the platform. Obviously there are issues with desktop platforms too, but those are easier to mitigate.
See, the thing is, here you can't use banking on your computer without having a bespoke authentication app on your phone. There used to be a system of one-time codes sent via paper mail, but even that has been scrapped by now, so using bank ID apps is literally the only option across all of the local banks. In my bank the ID app and the bank app are even different apps, and it's the ID app that's the truly important one to have (and that, of course, hates rooted/modified phones with a passion).
The government services also go through these ID apps, although there is a poorly supported alternative that uses USB smart card readers. I have not seen a single person actually use it, probably for a reason, though I'm planning to get one just to have a backup...
At least in Finland's Nordea bank you can order a physical code calculator, they used to be small enough to keep on your wallet but the new one is the size of an old small phone. It even has a QR scanner. So I just keep it at home.
I actually had no idea, I thought they retired these, but it seems that one of the models is still available. Thanks for the heads up!
Not a choice if you live in a "developed" country
I live in a "developed" country and don't have a banking app on my phone. It's a choice. Sometimes it's a choice of which bank you bank with. Sometimes it's a choice to stick with more traditional means of interacting with that bank and not even checking your account using a website, but it's absolutely a choice.
Is Linux for phones a thing? Or are you referring to GrapheneOS or LineageOS?
Real Linux on phones is a thing. They're usable, but most hardware is getting old. E.g. PinePhone still works fine, but they recently announced that it's unlikely that we see a new version. They mention that it's hard to be competitive with hardware when people can install PostmarketOS and SailfishOS on cheap old Android Devices for a similar experience.
https://pine64.org/2026/03/24/march_2026_fosdem/#where-is-th...
In the long run - without PinePhone - people will lose more and more control over hardware and drivers.
GNU/Linux phones exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librem_5 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinephone
They're insecure [1] and far from usable.
[1] https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux-phones.html
Only if your threat model is equal to the one from the GrapheneOS crowd, and only if you value freedom less than maximal security. It's fine if this is your choice, just don't say this is the only reasonable choice.
Concerning "usable", Librem 5 is my daily driver. I have no backup phone.
Also, after skimming your link and seeing "Hardware kill switches are nothing but marketing frills", I can state that this is nothing else than FUD. Kill switches can protect me, when GrapheneOS can't. You have to trust that your proprietary modem never spies on you. I don't have to. Also, here is a couple of nice discussions of this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37507414 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28500824
I think this is the only long term solution, even if cumbersome.
I’m curious what secondary devices people are using. I have a second hand Surface Go running Fedora 43 with Gnome, it’s a bit big but it’s doing its job well.
>Android's openness was never just a feature. It was the promise that distinguished it from iPhone. Millions chose Android for exactly that reason. Google is now revoking that promise unilaterally, on devices already in people's pockets, because they've decided they have enough market dominance and regulatory capture to get away with it.
This is why I've stuck with Android for the past 15 years.
This is a very HN view of Android. The "openness" of Android was for mobile device manufacturers, not app developers and end-users. Android's prominence was driven by the myriad of low-cost Android devices by multiple device manufacturers, whereas iOS is only available via iPhones.
The vast majority of users don't care about "openness" of the OS. They care about the utility of their phone in everyday life.
Can I access digital payment systems, social media apps, and entertainment apps? How's the camera on the phone? How big is the screen? Is it waterproof? How expensive is it?
These are the questions the majority of phone buyers care about. Not, can I download an app off of a random website and install it?
---
I would say that the majority of developers don't care about the "openness" either. They care about accessing a wide audience and getting revenue from their work. Free apps without ads or in-app purchases (zero-revenue apps) are the minority.
Google is also fine with losing the zero-revenue app developers because they provide no value for Google. Actually, they are probably a loss for Google, since Google provides Google Play Services.
> This is a very HN view of Android.
Just because you're HN dweller doesn't make it HN view. The openness, freedom, customizability and accessibility (money wise) were the tenets that differentiated Android from Apple devices.
>The openness, freedom, customizability and accessibility (money wise) were the tenets that differentiated Android from Apple devices.
i have never heard someone outside of tech circles (e.g. HN) mention openness, freedom, or customization, even as a passing comment.
they use a phone to access mainstream apps (youtube, instagram, reddit, maybe their bank) and text/call. mention "apk" or "fdroid" and their eyes start to glaze over.
cheaper devices, sure, i agree with that as being the differentiator to the average non-techie. the rest is, at least in my experience, absolutely a "HN view".
> i have never heard someone outside of tech circles... mention "apk" or "fdroid" and their eyes start to glaze over
My no-tech middle-aged uncles and aunts know what apks are, and that you need to install apps from somewhere apart from the main Play store if you want them to have no ads.
My brother, who's relationship with tech barely extends to the latest samsung flagship, threw away his iphone because he couldn't get all the apps he wanted.
I think _your_ impression of people outside tech circles is as HN-centric as it gets :)
> i have never heard someone outside of tech circles (e.g. HN) mention openness, freedom, or customization, even as a passing comment.
And how do you qualify "(e.g. HN)" for this purpose? Places where people value openness?
These feels like a no-true-scotsman.
Android is developed by the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium of mobile industry giants.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260420021444/https://www.openh...
Openness for end-users was never a tenet. It is a very HN view to think that open-source equals freedom for users, and to state that it was a promise when it never was.
Freedom for users was the motivating factor that created open source in the first place. Rewriting history to serve your own ends doesn't help your credibility.
I don’t know what you’re going on about “rewriting history”. I never mentioned the history of open source.
From the Open Handset Alliance:
“The Android platform will be made available under one of the most progressive, developer-friendly open-source licenses, which gives mobile operators and device manufacturers significant freedom and flexibility to design products.”
Give mobile operators and device manufacturers freedom, not consumers.
If anything, the people claiming that Android was created for freedom for consumers are rewriting history.
That's perhaps because typical consumers don't build their own operating systems?
Right. Phones won’t be built open for consumers because they aren’t built by consumers. They’re built by corporations for consumers.
The software may be built by consumers for consumers, e.g., AOSP distros. But, the hardware and mobile infrastructure, probably not.
> can I download an app off a random website and install it
This is a straw man. This change hurts third party app stores such as F-Droid the most. I vastly prefer it to Play Store for the same reasons I prefer GNU/Linux to macOS or Windows (discounting the fact that Linux no longer needs hacks to "just work").
nah it was considered more open for users.
This is the initial press release for the Open Handset Alliance, the collaborators for the creation of Android: https://web.archive.org/web/20260420021444/https://www.openh...
Nowhere is their goal to allow users complete control of their device. Android was built as an open-OS for the mobile device industry, not end-users.
Android might have been considered more open than other mobile OSes by users, but it was never a promise or goal.
> Nowhere is their goal to allow users complete control of their device. Android was built as an open-OS for the mobile device industry, not end-users.
The fact that having root access is not the default supports that. Without root we're just "consumers" and that's how they see us. There's a lot of discussion about the security model of Android and how root is bad. But we've come to the point to argue that having root access is not only less secure but that we don't need root at all. A lot of replies, even on HN, are like:
> Why would you even need root access? What is it you're trying to accomplish?
That's a much bigger security smokescreen than the one in TFA. Sure, having root may be dangerous, especially if you don't know what you're doing, but it's still a choice. Having no phone or doing banking IRL or not downloading apps from the Play Store you haven't heard of before would also be more secure. But these 3 options don't align to the financial gain the consumers would bring to the providers. The consumers having no root, on the other hand, benefits the providers.
When a platform ditches openness, you lose more than a seemingly insignificant market segment that makes no money. Using money as the only metric is stupid and myopic.
> When a platform ditches openness, you lose more than a seemingly insignificant market segment that makes no money.
Openness for users/consumers was never a goal for the Open Handset Alliance.
> Using money as the only metric is stupid and myopic.
Publicly traded companies will be publicly traded companies.
For you, is the openness of Android appealing as a matter of principle or does it enable you to do things you couldn't otherwise do?
I developed my first Android app when I was around 16 years old and I remember distinctly wanting to publish it on Google Play, but couldn't because they required developers to be 18+, and this was even before they introduced strict identity verification requirements. And iOS was a lost cause as XCode famously requires an operating system that only runs on very specific hardware for which I had no money. No matter, I published an apk on a website and ended up reaching a few tens of thousands of users that way. My app ended up transforming a (niche) industry and making a real impact on the world.
If Android isn't open, we lose the last open mobile operating system, which will have immeasurable negative effects on computing as a whole. People will need permission from either Apple or Google to create any mobile program. If you don't fit into their neat little system, you don't get permission. If I hadn't been able to publish my app for another 2 years I probably would've shelved it, decided it was stupid, forgot about it, got busy with other things, and never published it.
This is why I really wanted Capyloon to take off [1]. The idea was to build a whole mobile OS around PWAs. App Stores are just CDNs. There are no weird rules about payment processors. The ecosystem did not need to start from scratch.
Unfortunately, it just never gained the necessary momentum.
[1]: https://capyloon.org/
I always wonder how different it would look for the myriad of failed open source projects like that, if they had just picked a more marketable name
I've still got a firefox OS phone in a drawer somewhere. I was disappointed it got discontinued like so many other mozilla projects.
I was as well. It was very early, but not necessarily too early.
I think part of the problem is that they decided to have the flagship devices be low-end hardware, rather than high-end hardware. They were trying to ensure that development took low-end hardware into account, but they failed to consider that by the time the platform grew, high-end would become mid-range.
It's hard for me to know for sure, but to me it felt like the fact that none of the firefoxOS phones were targetted as devices developers would themselves want to use as their main phone was a big misstep in strategy.
I actually use the ability to install custom software on Android. I actually use the ability for Android apps to bundle JITs, and language interpreters, and other things that allow you to extend the app at runtime. The Apple walled garden would be unusable for me. And moves like this one to turn the Android ecosystem into the Apple ecosystem will generally be regressions.
If anything, I'd like more openness in Android. For instance, apps should not have any control over what data I can back up; I should be able to back up every aspect of every app, restore it to a new phone, and apps should not be allowed to care.
You can download torrents on an android and plug usb media devices into it. When I was bicycle touring Europe with my wife a couple years ago we constantly downloaded books for direct input into our kobos and shows and movies to fall asleep to at night you could play from random, often old and crappy, hotel and airbnb televisions. You can’t do any of that on an iPhone.
That said; iPhone is my main phone, has been for a decade or more. But I deeply appreciate what you can do with an android.
Android to me is like a tool. I use it and then I want it as far away as I can when I don't need it.
Iphones makes my life easier but are too limited.
Best case scenario, carry both.
I used to build custom apps for my Android all the time, install APKs, transfer files over USB, use USB tethering on my Linux computer, torrent, use a mouse and keyboard (I think iOS can do this now though), use the integrated terminal, etc.
A few years ago, iOS lacked basic features like widgets, NFC, calculator on their tablets, etc. And iOS still has a completely inferior keyboard (I used to write code and essays on my Android while walking) and a completely inferior notification system. Androids are also the only phones still offering a fingerprint scanner, which is way better for me. These nice things all combine well with the oppenness.
What's worse is that we're clearly in a progression of restriction. Bootloader restrictions, app installation restrictions, "age verification" requirements, etc. Openness is being locked down from every angle with serious momentum, it's not anticipated to stop here.
The openness of Android also acts as a check of sorts on how restrictive the walled garden can get. If google were to clamp down on useful functionality in the play store, then you could always install apks yourself. But if the latter is no longer an option, then there's much more temptation to google for the former.
I get the feeling that clamping down on useful functionality is often an unfortunate side-effect of closing down paths that are being exploited by criminals to harm users.
What should Google do when a change they are making to protect regular less-technical users breaks functionality needed by more advanced users?
What's the threat model here?
If the user must click through a tons of disclaimers (including locked 60-second timeouts with huge WARNING: SCAM ALERT or something) in something buried in settings to get scammed, I think the few edge cases may be worth the tradeoff of being able to install apks.
Remember there is already malware-scanning by default (by Google play), apps need to ask for permissions, they generally can't read other app data or control say banking apps, modify system data (at all), etc..
The threat vectors seem already restricted. I haven't met anyone which has fallen to actual Android malware ever (that I can remember), but I can remember several close family members which were victims of simpler social engineering scams (mostly unsuccessfully) recently.
The problem with the toxic max-security[0] arguments is that it is always possible to invent a more gullible fool. There is no security measure that will perfectly protect a user from getting scammed out of everything, save for scamming them first and then treating their property as your own. That's the Apple argument. The only way you can keep people secure without falling into the same rhetorical trap Apple employs is with bright red lines that you swear not to cross, no matter how many people wind up getting scammed, because at the end of the day, people are adults, and their property is theirs.
Furthermore, we have to acknowledge that scam-fighting is not Google's job. They can assist with law enforcement (assuming they do not violate the rights of their customers while doing so) but they should not be making themselves judge, jury, and executioner in the process.
If you want a more concrete technical recommendation, locking down device management profiles would be a far more effective and less onerous countermeasure than putting a 24-hour waiting period on unknown app installs. Device management exists almost exclusively for the sake of businesses locking down property they're loaning out to employees, but a large subset of scams abuse this functionality. Part of the problem is that installing a device profile is designed to sound non-distressing, because it's "routine", even though you're literally installing spyware. Ideally, for a certain subset of strong management profile capabilities, the phone should wipe itself (and warn you that it's going to wipe itself) if you attempt to install that profile.
[0] https://tom7.org/httpv/httpv.pdf
Requiring every package in F-Droid to pay a developer licensing fee is not protecting anyone, in fact it will make people less safe. The whole model of F-Droid relies on free software, needing to pay a license fee to Google banishes people who have no profit motive - Google is explicitly banning a nonthreatening group of developers.
> What should Google do when a change they are making to protect regular less-technical users breaks functionality needed by more advanced users?
Have people read and type in a message saying "I'm not on the phone with a potential scammer who is trying to get me to install a package that may be dangerous", trust people to actually read what they're typing, and if they can't read and comprehend that, stop getting in the way of them shooting themselves in the foot.
> What should Google do when a change they are making to protect regular less-technical users breaks functionality needed by more advanced users?
Put it behind an USB ADB only toggle and be more transparent to avoid slippery slope?
That requires having a PC to unlock basic functionality on your Android device, assuming the change we're talking about is still app installs.
I don't think OS vendors should be expected to keep people from doing dangerous things. A warning label saying "hey that's dangerous because..." is reasonable, but anything more and they're trying to be my sysadmin against my will.
The sysadmin part is their value-add. One reason my current phone being an iPhone after being 100% Android for a decade are the better walls and nicer garden.
These are sold as consumer devices and not general computers. It sounds like you want something different. They’re selling cars and you want a motorcycle.
Android was very open when it was released and for some time after. Installing APKs directly was easy. Most devices had unlocked or unlockable bootloaders. An Android phone treated its user much like a PC did.
More sysadmin-as-a-service type stuff is fine as long as the opt-out is easy. This isn't. I'm upset about the rug pull.
I understand. I was one of the 25 people excited about the OtherOS option on the PS3. When Sony removed that in an update I was bummed because that’s one of the reasons I bought it.
You never know though. Sometimes things go the other way. When the iPhone launched there was no way to create apps for it or install third party applications except as web apps.
People keep framing it as tinkerers versus normies. That's not the real problem.
The real problem is that prior to verification, Google can't ban ICE tracking apps (or whatever the next problematic government doesn't like) from Android, and after verification they will be able to for most users.
They say they won't do that. I might even believe the people currently running things won't do that, but they will be incentivized to do that in the future, and incentives are much better at predicting outcomes than intent.
I reject your premise. I do not believe that the primary motivation here is to protect less technical users. However even were I to accept that, I would say the change is an unacceptable one thus they should either figure something else out or do nothing.
I think they know that they are going to lose some users.
If you are a fan of open source, maybe this will be a good thing. Maybe this will drive more people and money to open source projects directed at making a better mobile OS.
Oh yes, a very unfortunate side-effect that companies are implementing with tears in their eyes, tearing their clothes apart.
>For you, is the openness of Android appealing as a matter of principle or does it enable you to do things you couldn't otherwise do?
Both. I don't like the idea of locked down computers and that includes phones, especially now that they're so prominent in our lives.
I dabbled in Android development for fun a decade ago and I loved how there was no barrier to entry. I've loaded apps that aren't available on the Play Store and have loaded apps that my friends have made just as fun side projects.
There was a handheld gaming system in the early 2000s called Cybiko. Cybiko and Sega Dreamcast homebrew opened my mind up to the power of computers and having control of your hardware. These things should not be locked down. I liked messing around with making little programs on the Cybiko and downloading homebrew games for it and the Dreamcast. The openness of Android really excited me when it was new because I thought of it the same way as a Cybiko or Dreamcast or PC and not a locked down device where I can only run software approved by the hardware manufacturer.
I modify several apps for my own use in ways that wouldn't get accepted upstream (or are proprietary), and I modify OS components to reduce the impact of opinionated Google UI design (and Apple is worse in this context).
Both, very much both, and I would assume that the 'actually being able to use the device in whatever way I want' feeds back into the 'this should be a thing we can do with purchased-to-own hardware' feeling
I'll chime in with a really basic example. On my Android phone, I can have syncthing run as a background task. I can point other applications to use a data folder, in my syncthing share, and store their persistent state there. The Camera app, for example. Or Obsidian, my current favorite note taking app. Syncthing, by virtue of being always on and manipulating a decades old, very well understood filesystem concept, "magically" syncs all of these changes to every other device I own. Entirely offline, even if the internet is out, because the devices can just talk to each other.
So far, I have been utterly incapable of getting my iPad to do anything remotely similar. It can run syncthing, technically, but not in the background. Apps don't have a shared filesystem structure, so it's difficult to get anything else set up to "save within my shared folder" in a way that would work, and that disregards that the syncing cannot occur when anything else is open. There's all sorts of cloud backup options, but those require the internet and even when they're working, there's this awkward import/export flow that adds friction to the whole dance.
In isolation this would just be a small papercut, I guess, but these sorts of limitations are all over iOS. It's just terribly hostile to anyone not fully committed to the Cloud-first, Apple-hardware ecosystem. Android doesn't care, and doesn't have to care, because it lets me run the software I want. It's a really small set of programs too, at the end of the day. (Firefox with real extensions is the other one.)
This is the exact reason we switched my wife from iPhone to Android – because her iPhone couldn't sync reliably for our shared password vault or for Immich.
Like not be tracked?
Not op, but I used to be a mobile app.
I use this to occasionally build and install Android apps from github.
These are often out of date and need some tweaks but I can do it on a whim (I certainly wouldn't bother if there was a paywall).
Yes.
Can you expand on that? I'd like to understand the kinds of things millions of people are no longer going to be able to do.
Well for instance the top app on fdroid is apparently "simpmusic" which would be impossible to run on an iphone because apple doesn't allow apps like it [1]... and it has 800k downloads from f-droid by itself.
To be clear though android isn't stooping to Apple levels yet. You can still do anything, it just makes it obnoxious to do so.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/05/musi-strikes-bac...
This is going to make it more difficult for non-open source projects to get a foothold in the future because people are not going to trust a promise any more. Like, I have this thing called a smart phone. Is it open source? No? Oh well.
That would be good, but somehow didn't work all the other times.
> Millions chose Android for exactly that reason
Citation needed.
But even if millions did bought an Android phone for ill-defined defined, about 15 billion Android phones were sold over the years, which could very well make those millions a minority, with most having other reasons for their purchase.
Same
There's no point anymore.
There is still a point to making a choice. Inconvenient sideloading is still better than no sideloading.
In principle I could never reward Apple with my business for having originated and normalized this.
And pragmatically, I'd like to hold on for as long as I can to the next set of rights that Apple will take away five years before Google does.
From what I can tell, Graphene OS will be unaffected. Some of the app stores like Aurora and F-Droid may run into problems during the verification process. Best I can tell (and read from other sources) is an inconvenient 24 hour wait period and many have said the Graphene team will overcome that in short order.
I would say keep the faith as I'm in the same boat and have made my choice for privacy and control. Giving up everything when it could very well be a minor setback is worth holding the line.
[flagged]
You have been able to sideload on iOS for years; I first did it in 2021 but I think it was earlier than that. You just needed to create a server on a Mac and you could easily load apps on, all without any kind of special jailbreak. When Delta got released on the App Store, that was cool and all, but I wasn't as impressed as others because I had already been playing emulators on my iPhone for years.
Was it convenient? No, of course not, but it's been an option for quite awhile; to me the biggest advantage for Android was the fact that it was relatively easy to sideload apps.
To be clear, I don't like that Google is doing this, and I think arguing that it's for security is a half-truth at best. I could make my phone 100% "secure" by pounding a nail through the NAND chip; no one is getting into my phone after that.
With the advent of vibe coding, a part of me wonders how hard it would be to hack together my own phone OS with a Raspberry Pi or something and a USB SIM card reader. Realistically probably too much work for me, but a man can dream.
> Millions chose Android for exactly that reason.
Millions? Are you sure?
Even so, Android has billions of users who want secure app management by default.
Don't buy the FUD claiming this is about "secure app management".
Just to play devils advocate, the petition is a bit of FUD too, no? I ask as an F-droid user and downloader of unofficial apks. Speaking purely from my own experience, all the side-loaded apps I care about are fungible; I could get them or similar quality equivalents from GPS. With the exception of a 4chan reader, that hasn't been hosted there and likely won't be. I don't mind the 1 day wait too much.
I understand political dissidents and those living under authoritarians may have much more concrete Fs and Ds but for me (us?) it's mostly U.
> I don't mind the 1 day wait too much.
I do. It's my device. And I've been in the position of having to buy a replacement phone in a pinch; having to wait an extra day before having a usable replacement is not acceptable.
In terms of apps I might not be able to get from the Play store:
- Signal, depending on what country I'm in in the future and whether they've tried to restrict things they can't backdoor.
- Vanilla Music, which remains the best music player I've used. (I wish there were an Android version of Quod Libet.)
- A fully capable version of Termux. (the Play store currently has a less capable version that's maintained separately, which could go away if someone decides to stop putting up with it).
- Syncthing-Fork, which has at times been undermaintained in the Play store.
I'm gonna try out Vanilla Music now. FWIW I use Musicolet from GPS and it's quite nice. I hope to learn whether and how our criteria intersect by exploring Vanilla....
Update: out of the box it seems to be reading tags strangely. Maybe I could fix this studying the settings more, but I'd say you have an upgrade opportunity switching off Vanilla. Signal is hard to replace though.
Honestly, the only thing I want out of Vanilla is the filesystem view. The only modes I ever use with a music player are to browse files as I organized them into folders, queue them up, and play the queue on repeat and/or shuffle.
The problem is the slipper slope. If we let Google get away with this, it will only get worse.
Just see the Play Integrity API making the user experience more difficult on more secure devices like GOS with mo security benefit.
>Play Integrity permits a device with years of missing security patches. It isn't a legitimate security feature. It checks for a device in compliance with Google's Android business model, not security.
(https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/2036610983888588818#m)
> all the side-loaded apps I care about are fungible; I could get them or similar quality equivalents from GPS
You're missing out then!
I am very open to first hand recommendations :)
> Starting September 2026, a silent update, nonconsensually pushed by Google, will block every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with Google, signed their contract, paid up, and handed over government ID.
This is false. Google will provide two other flows for app distribution that are different than this.
> Every app and every device, worldwide, with no opt-out.
Again, false. There is an opt-out called the "advanced flow".
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/android-de...
But the "opt-out" will not prevent ecosystem effects caused by the default shutdown of convenient app installs due to the policy. Not even for GrapheneOS users. It's a global policy by a body we never voted for. You can't opt-out of that different world by waiting 24-hours, the ecosystem could have permanent effects. This is coming from a company that doesn't even bother to expose a permission to disable Internet access per app. It's there underneath, but they just ... don't expose the choice.
Is it really going to have ecosystem effects? Surely the small portion of power-users who are bothering to intentionally sideload apps can click a couple of buttons. Or just load via ADB and avoid the entire thing.
The entire point here is to prevent scam actors from using a false sense of urgency to defraud people. That is a serious vulnerability that needs to be addressed somehow, and I think this is a good compromise that doesn't impact people's ability to sideload.
I say this as someone who sideloads apps literally every day.
`Is it really going to have ecosystem effects?`
Will mandatory ID gatekeeping of developers have ecosystem effects? Surely the only question is how much? You may install apps over ADB every day, but APK installing is much more convenient and open-source F-Droid developers currently don't have to do a thing to be "allowed" to ship APKs.
`The entire point here is to prevent scam actors from using a false sense of urgency to defraud people.` The proposed architecture is a general developer gate, it is not a proportionate response to the problem - it isn't even proposing to gate specific app permissions, it's being able to install the apps from APKs at all under a regime they administer, with users forced to have this change with no prior consent, only opt-out, and distribution limiting work-arounds (that harm reach).
If Android were to ask the user if they wanted to disable installing downloaded apps from developers who haven't shown Google IDs for their own safety, and let end users give informed consent about what self-protection behaviour level they want for their system, at the point of roll-out, or device setup, that would be quite different.
Why should Google be trusted to gate what apps can be easily shared, when stock Android won't even allow users to toggle Internet access per-app? It isn't proportionate compared to other permissions they could mediate, and worse, it's a centralised architecture vulnerable to authoritarian pressure, and afterwards they will be well positioned to lock it down more.
> The entire point here is to prevent scam actors from using a false sense of urgency to defraud people. That is a serious vulnerability that needs to be addressed somehow
Does it, and if it does, does it need to be addressed by an OS vendor creating a mechanism to ban developers for most users? I'm not convinced of the former, and I'm certain the latter is bad. I predict within ten years, we will see this used against something that is not malware.
What do you mean "ban developers for most users"? Most users get their apps through the play store, which will still exist here. Some users sideload apks, which is also a functionality that will still exist.
> we will see this used against something that is not malware.
See what exactly used against something that is not malware? The Play Store already has requirements other than "don't be malware". If you're talking about the sideloading requirements, all of these requirements apply to every app, not just malware.
Recently, both Apple and Google banned apps for reporting immigration raids in the USA from their respective stores. Android users can still trivially download such apps from other sources. After the verification requirement, nothing changes as long as the developer has a permission slip from Google. If they don't, users have a waiting period that could be a critical delay in an emergency like a crackdown by an oppressive government.
Google has stated that it will only withhold such permission from developers who distribute malware. I imagine they'll stick to that promise at first, but long-term I think they won't. Once it's possible for them to impose partial bans on developers, governments have every incentive to pressure them to do it.
People like you are the problem. Nitpicking and hand waving the bigger picture.
You deliberately took the second quote out of context, in order to (attempt to) refute it. Here's the quote, with context:
> Starting September 2026, a silent update, nonconsensually pushed by Google, will block every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with Google, signed their contract, paid up, and handed over government ID. Every app and every device, worldwide, with no opt-out.
That is not false, it's completely accurate. You don't have to take my word for it, though, the Android developer docs have a helpful page detailing the plan [1].
As for the "advanced flow", the article discusses it in detail.
[1]: https://developer.android.com/developer-verification
??? We literally quoted the exact same text.
The plan does not outline what that quote does. You only have to do all of the things the quote claims you do in one of the three possible deployment flows. In "advanced flow" you don't have to do any of them.
No, you quoted some of the text. Hence my statement that you removed the context. If you read the full quote, it's clearly stating that you cannot opt-out of the update.
Please read it again. We quoted exactly the same thing, to the character.
Also, you can certainly opt to not install android updates, if that's your preferred reading here -- so that is also false.
He broke the quote in 2 ffs, can't you read?
"Tap the build number 7 times" ... "wait 24 hours"
Throw a pinch of salt over your left (wait, no ... right) shoulder. Spin around clockwise 3 times. Read the Rosary twice.
AHA! So, they are allowing users to keep doing what they want.
Start again. But this time, align your left top molar with the lower right canine.
This flow will be managed by google play services, not locally.
I don't care, I run Graphene, and my phone is definitely mine. Most Android apps just work, and the ones that don't are the kind of malware I am happy to do without.
I use GrapheneOS too. Most of the time it works great, with some weird bugs around group messages and needing to restart every now and then to get to a fully functional state between the browser and keyboard properly working with each other and the network connectivity going away. I do enjoy full control on network connectivity and notifications.
But beyond whether the OS is good or not, "fuck you, I've got mine" is not only sad as a position in general, it is also a bad tactical choice, because over long enough timeframes you can't assure that you can keep yours if others are deprived.
I agree about "I got around the system so I don't care how bad it is.", but it is at least still a form of saying "an alternative to this problem is Graphene", and that can't be repeated enough until a whole lot more people are using it, or anything else like Lineage.
Graphene (or anything else) will only stay a useful option if a whole lot more people use it so that government agencies and banks can't ignore that many people. A whole lot more people need to feel they aren't completely alone if they thought about using it, that it's actually a real option and not a kooky crap option.
Right now agencies & companies can totally ignore them all, and everything that still works today is just luck.
I haven't used Graphene myself. At the moment I have a stock rom that's merely rooted using the official manufacturer supplied bootloader unlock, and my small local credit union bank apps work, and the LG app that controls my air conditioners and microwave does not. Even if the bank apps didn't work it wouldn't matter because they have working web sites, and I never wanted an an app for my appliances in the first place.
But any day that could change.
It's just luck the banks have web sites that work in firefox on linux, and just luck there are no functions I need on those appliances that require the app.
> But beyond whether the OS is good or not, "fuck you, I've got mine"...
What about, "I got mine and you can have it to." Nobody is preventing access to graphene.
>>> I don't care, I run Graphene, and my phone is definitely mine.
I really don't see an implied "and you can too".
Graphene is available to everyone.
> "fuck you, I've got mine" is not only sad as a position in general, it is also a bad tactical choice
I don't think the parent was saying that.
My opinion is that it is actually the real fight: it should be mandatory for manufacturers to make it possible to have an alternative OS (which includes allowing to unlock/relock the bootloader and add custom signing keys) and it should be mandatory for big companies (e.g. banks) to not ban those alternative OSes with Play Integrity or whatever goddamn checks they make.
Fighting about what Google does on the Google flavour of AOSP is a distraction, IMO.
Devs have been warning F-Droid about this for years:
It's quite problematic that someone can currently upload a package name belonging to another organization to the Play Store and that should have been stopped years ago since it was used in many cases for scamming and squatting on package names clearly belonging to others. Package names are meant to start with a reverse domain belonging to the owner such as app.grapheneos for our grapheneos.app domain. They could enforce this based on domains authorizing usage without enforcing ID verification and that's what we would have proposed.
This is one of the ways F-Droid has ignored standard best practices including security practices in a way that's already causing problems but is now a massive issue for them. If they had started doing things properly many years ago when it was first brought up, then they'd be in a much better situation today. They're going to need to deal with this by renaming all their package names to org.fdroid. to avoid issues with the proposed changes. This is problematic because existing users will stop getting updates. It's better to use a prefix than a suffix where a developer could end up changing their mind about whether it makes sense resulting in conflict over the name, which is fair since they still own it if it's their reverse domain.
I'm running GrapheneOS too and while I've experienced the same, I'm dreading the day any of my banking apps update and suddenly start demanding full Play Integrity API support (GrapheneOS only has Basic) causing them to fail to open. Hasn't happened yet but it could.
It always feels like my phone experience is just a pleasant intermezzo. My banking app (ABN Amro) works, government apps (DigiD) work, everything just works, and I get security and a certain degree of distance between me and Google. I can use F-Droid to install useful apps, and incidentally use Google's app store for apps I need because the rest of the world uses them. GrapheneOS rocks.
Borrowed time. I hope not, but that's the prevailing feeling.
Happened to me. Stopped working on GrapheneOS because of some goddamn check they make, but still runs on an outdated /e/OS signed with the Google test keys (i.e. without a proper secure boot).
The real fight is to prevent companies (like those banks) to do that kind of shit. And to force manufacturers into allowing us to install alternative systems, instead of preventing unlocking/relocking of the bootloader for instance).
Yeah, and legislation would be needed here but that's just not going to happen. With the GrapheneOS Motorola partnership (only a Lenovo subsidiary but its something) and hopefully more with other manufacturers, this might turn the tide, but its a long shot.
> legislation would be needed here but that's just not going to happen
Why not? The EU DMA is going in that kind of direction...
If that happens you could buy a cheap Android like a Moto G for that indispensable banking app and keep using your GrapheneOS device for everything else. Not ideal, but many of us have old devices lying around that can be used for that.
I have a pixel 10 pro and have tried no less than 5 times to get my apps to work on graphene, no luck.
I'm no slouch either, I've developed for android for almost a decade.
I'm not disagreeing with ya, just adding a comment so folks are aware that the "Graphene just works" crowd is sometimes a bit hyperbolic.
I've been using it for a bit over a year. Installed in a few minutes thanks to WebUSB. A bit of research needed to set the right permissions on Google Play Services.
After that? I only had one application fail due to Graphene's memory allocator. No weird bugs, no need to restart like some siblings are commenting. As close to the "Graphene just works" as it could be.
However, I'm not heavy into Google's ecosystem. Google Pay will not work but I'm not a user, some Google features won't tell you why they don't work but I'm not using them either (Quick Share for instance), none of my apps require the highest Play Integrity level. Maybe the person who say this are a specific type of person where use-cases don't overlap with what breaks on Graphene.
The interaction of secondary users with RCS is borked to all hell. It just plain doesn't work.
Firefox + stock keyboard stopped properly working three days ago, it's back to normal now. No idea what that was about. Restarting was the only way I found to get things working again during that period.
While on the stock Android keyboard, it is clear that the Google one is much better at correcting my taps than the stock one. My typo count has gone up significantly.
Every several weeks the mobile connectivity stops working and nothing short of a restart will get it working again. This might be a bad interaction of the very weird way Google Fi works with a secondary user account.
I've encountered one case of the phone shutting itself off to install an update overnight and not turning on, making me miss my morning alarm.
In the US, there's no way to side step the lack of tap to pay.
Getting apps to work with Android Auto requires some finessing.
These are the things I've encountered in the last 2 months of using Graphene.
Aside from all of that, I really like everything else about the OS. As it stands, it does lacks polish when straying outside of the common path. Not using a secondary account, nor Google Fi on an eSIM, and using the stock browser would likely improve my experience significantly.
I haven't encountered an app that wouldn't work yet (but have installed play services as I do want to use Android Auto).
I would still recommend Grapheme for normal-ish users, as long as you don't go "paranoid mode" with secondary accounts and skipping play services or don't want to use the phone for tons of things beyond phone calls and web browsing. The base experience is that much calmer than stock Android on Pixel.
Thanks for writing all this, this really shows how the failures you encountered don't overlap with my use of the phone.
I don't use RCS and Android Auto.
I have HeliBoard to replace Stock/Google Keyboard. It is way ahead the stock keyboard experience but far behind Google Keyboard's, especially when writing in two languages.
Tap-to-pay works with my bank apps. But that means I can only use one card unlike with GPay.
I rarely use second account as the latency to switch from one account to the other is a pain. I only have a secondary sending notifications to the first one.
I don't let the phone auto-reboot for installs, I let it install automatically and click reboot when I want it to install.
I am on a physical SIM / different carrier and never encountered network issues so I can't comment on that one.
How many apps do you have that don't run there? Would you be willing to share them? I have been using GrapheneOS for a couple years and almost everything works seamlessly (except when e.g. a bank decides to ban GrapheneOS).
What apps?
(idle interest; I use Graphene, but few apps, and everything worked so far)
I think the real issue here is hardware attestation. GrapheneOS will not protect you.
I will believe the GrapheneOS-Motorola project is a thing when I receive the phone.
Google hates real competition. They blasted out Chrome when Firefox was really taking off and normies were discovering adblocking. Chrome allowed adblocking as a honeypot until everybody was safely in their garden.
The goal in this for Google is to support digital ID. Every totalitarian goal currently being employed requires a digital ID and phones are how they want citizens to access their digital ID (the actual digital ID is created, owned, and managed by the regime, though they will outsource). However, this requires a phone they completely control. Google doesn't care about GrapheneOS or Agoristic users and will lock them out without even thinking twice about it.
Sadly it works only on Pixel phones.
They’ve announced a partnership with Motorola to have it installed on some of their phones in the future, so not just Pixels for long!
Assuming that this Graphene partnership ends up working out, this is probably what I will end up doing once my current iPhone dies. I like my iPhone 13 Pro Max, it's a good phone and I don't really have a desire to get rid of it, but eventually it will break, or get stolen, or in some other way become unusable, and as such it will need to be replaced.
I really hated my Pixel 7 Pro, but I think that was bad hardware and not Android's fault, and since buying my iPhone 13 I have bought my Thinkpad and have been unbelievably impressed with Lenovo hardware (especially since the last Android phone that I bought that I actually liked was my Moto X3).
It would be great if Graphene ends up getting support from at least one first party, because at that point I think there's at least a chance it won't screw with banking apps and the like.
That's a great attitude until slowly but surely 90% of apps used in day to day life won't function for you: banking, dating, social media, e-commerce, communication/messaging etc slowly freeze you out.
A hidden benefit is having to decide now whether you actually need these things.
Messaging apps will continue working.
Banking apps made by reasonable companies will also. In days of banking being competitive and rather open with many providers offering good value, it's so easy to switch providers. Granted I am relatively poor and keep my banking simple, but I doubt card providers want to increase friction either. After Revolut started requiring >basic integrity it took me appx 1 day to switch to n26 and nothing of value was lost.
Not being able to use socialmedia, e-commerce, and dating apps sounds great.
Are banks and e-commerce going to get rid of their websites? I imagine some will, but I can’t imagine using one that did.
Dating… well, the goal for most people is to exit the dating pool anyway.
Social media is bad.
In many countries it's already impossible to use just the web for banking. They either make you install rootkits on your computer or move you to their mobile apps
Wow, that sounds awful. You say country, which makes me wonder—is this the result of a popular type of law or something? I can’t imagine every bank in a country deciding to make that same move. But I live in a large country with lots of banks so I’m sure I have a very biased point of view.
> I can’t imagine every bank in a country deciding to make that same move.
Many countries have only three or four full banks (the kind that can give you a Visa or Mastercard bank card, let you send and receive transfers, etc.), and all of them are making the same moves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Services_Directive tldr: eu mandates secure 2fa for online banking and most banks only implement it using their app as second factor.
> They either make you install rootkits on your computer
I am aware that some banks require apps on "certified" phones, but I haven't heard of rootkits on PCs, yet. Do you have an example of that?
Well we should fight against that, then.
You should care because the install base could reduce drastically. Reducing the amount of Devs and contributions to the FOSS scene. This will degrade your experience
> I don't care, I run Graphene, and my phone is definitely mine.
It helps, but your modems are still closed chipsets you have no ability to control constantly in communication with and controlled by third parties who can execute code on your hardware at any time without your notice or consent.
Google could lock out Graphene too, whenever they like, with no warning. I hope Graphene has a plan.
They're partnering with Motorola to build devices with official GrapheneOS support. https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116159602850585685
GrepheneOS depends also on Google's Android OS, not only on Google's hardware.
That's the real fight. We should fight to make this illegal. It should be mandatory to provide the technical ability to install an alternative OS on a computer, period.
They could conceivably lock the bootloader, but Graphene now has a partnership with Motorola.
There are many ways Google could prevent third parties from using Android code, and the code of Android components (e.g., Google Play), to make varient OSes. Without Android support and compatibility, it would be very tough going for GrapheneOS.
They already are slowing the publishing of AOSP (or something like that).
How can you trust graphene or it's contributors and supply chain?
Same as you can trust Google. Though GrapheneOS is entirely open source, and Google is not. And Google has been screwing you in the past.
It's open source [1], and they're pretty transparent about everything. You can ask the devs anything, and they will probably give you a really useful and informative answer. They have extensive documentation, and they're pretty open, even about stuff like their servers [2], configurations [3], everything.
[1] https://grapheneos.org/source
[2] https://grapheneos.org/articles/grapheneos-servers
[3] https://github.com/GrapheneOS/infrastructure
First they came for the stock Android users, and I did not speak out for I was not a stock Android user.
Ironically, you’ve had to pay Google for the privilege of opting out of their new rules.
Which is because other manufacturers don't allow you to unlock/relock the bootloader, right?
Being a Graphene user is fine and all, but if this continues it will have a chilling effect on OSS Android development. And that will still effect you.
I think of my iPhone as a phone plus a mobile browser plus a biometric device. It has a lot of memory and a lot of compute power but that is just because all the crap sites and apps out there, unnecessary animations, etc. One could also claim that a phone is a mobile gaming device, although that is not my thing.
Biometrics is the feature that confers all the power to Apple and Google. All sorts of shady things can be done in the name of security and privacy.
The internet would be a much better place if browsing and biometrics were done in different devices.
I don't see why megacorporations and governments are allowed to control the computer I carry around in my pocket, while I'm not.
This is a bit related, but not precisely on top of the major topic we are discussing, but I'll say it anyway: I just got a brand new Samsung A56 for my personal use, and I just found out, like a minute ago, that I can't set a maximum battery charge (say 85%) without internet. It's asking me to turn on the WiFi. This makes no sense whatsoever. If I had to guess it's because Samsung wants to keep a profile of my battery settings and they need that telemetry, but not allowing me to set the bloody thing without internet is insane.
Another thing that happened yesterday when I was setting up the phone was the mandatory need of an internet connection, otherwise the phone would simply not allow me to move on with the setup.
I'm this fucking close to sell this thing and try my luck with a Chinese smartphone, which I'm pretty sure is not going to toss that shit on my face. (I had a Chinese one and a Galaxy S20 FE before, both on different Android versions, 10 and 11 iirc that wouldn't block me like that)
/rantOver
GrapheneOS proves it's not an absolute, that "the computer I carry around in my pocket" must depend upon a megacorp / gov. <3
The issue still is boiling down to GrapheneOS having less $$ for marketing vs GOOG / Alphabet / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products
Because it's their creation.
I don't know if that is sarcasm, but a chair I buy is mine to do whatever I want with it. Same goes for clothes, a mattress, paint, or any other non-software enabled physical item. Why does having software/hardware make a difference?
Because your clothes and paint do not need security updates, since they do not talk to the internet. Your mattress cannot be made part of a botnet.
Somehow my computer has not become part of a botnet despite having a free OS.
A quite large chunk of botnet "members" are IoT crap (even mattresses).
Tell that to my eightSleep mattress
You can do whatever you want with your phone too, it isn’t illegal to jailbreak an iPhone for example.
That scene is dying a boiling-frog death. The newest OS that is fully jailbreakable on a sufficiently-modern arm64e device is 16.5.1 (go back a few models to the iPhone X and the current Dopamine beta works up to 16.7.15). There is also a "semi-jailbreak" called nathanlr, which is less full featured and works up to iOS 17.0 on iPhone 15 and prior. There's also TrollStore which isn't a jailbreak, but allows unlimited sideloading with arbitrary entitlements. This tool only functions on the following versions of iOS: 14.0 beta 2 - 16.6.1, 16.7 RC (20H18), 17.0
These OS versions are getting long in the tooth, and apps are already starting to drop support for them.
Because capitalists extend control wherever they can to maximize profitability.
If you want decisions that corporations make to be aligned with the desires of their users, you should be advocating for software/hardware built by consumer cooperatives.
[dead]
The author as well as commenters in this thread are claiming that people choose Android over iOS or vice versa
One could argue this is false dichotomy
These people are actually choosing a particular form factor with particular specifications that, more or less, only runs corporate mobile OS^1 instead of form factors that run non-corporate OS
1. Or some derivative of one that relies on the corporate distributor and replicates the tethering to a third party, e.g., "phoning home" to the OS distributor, "automatic updates" (remote code execution), etc.
There are other form factors of computers that can run non-corporate OS, where "phone home" and RCE code does not exist or, if necessary, any undesired code can be easily removed by concerned users
In sum, one could argue that with respect to control, privacy, etc. (a) choosing to use one corporate mobile OS over another is not a meaningful "choice" when compared with (b) choosing to use a non-corporate, open source, "compilable by the user" OS instead of a "locked down" corporate mobile OS
This choice can be made on a case-by-case basis depending on what computing problem the user is trying solve. With respect to anyone who seeks to use their "phone" as a general purpose computer to solve every computing problem, one could argue the "choice" of one corporate mobile OS over another is not meaningful with respect to user control, privacy, etc.
Instead "tech journalists", "tech blogs" and online commenters prefer to argue over which is the "better" corporate mobile OS. The truth is, with respect to control, privacy, etc., they all suck
It's common today to own multiple computers. Not everyone uses a mobile phone for banking transactions. For those that do, nothing prevents them from using different computers for non-banking uses. Personally, I don't use banking apps and if I did I would not want one on the same computer that I use for non-commercial purposes, for example, reading HN stories
Right on the nose. And to make that problem worse we've integrated a fair share of our lives into these devices, for which there is only 2 terrible choices. I can't tell you how many friends have expressed to me that they'd love to try GrapheneOS or get out of the mobile ecosystem entirely, but all of them use mobile apps for banking which effectively locks them in. It's basically the devil's bargain because we've added so much ease of use functionality to our day to day lives through these devices. In exchange Google is now showing us it was never ours to begin with.
I agree with your post however further info on one point:
> but all of them use mobile apps for banking which effectively locks them in
Many banking apps work fine with GOS. But given banking and money is such an important part of our lives it is easy to see why people might be hesitant.
It doesn't guarantee future compatibility.... but linked below is a GOS [banking app] status list, crowdsourced info by country.
https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compa...
This change has served me well! I have been a Mac OS X users for years who used an android phone. As soon as google announced their impending walled garden status, I went out and bought into the ios eco system. I have really been enjoying my iphone, ipad, and apple watch.
You see, the only value that Android really offered me was the ability to run my own code on my own device. Since they are taking that away that just makes it a crappier shadow of the vastly superior apple experience. And, as it turns out, ios is less restrictive than it was 18 years ago when I left them for Android!
Even after Google puts this crap in place, you can still uplodad your own apps to your own Android devices, using ADB. Doing the same for iOS, using Xcode, costs you USD 100 or more (depending on country) per year.
I'm in no way defending Google here, just pointing out you're going from bad to worse and think it's a good thing.
Yeah but where you were losing a lot, you're now losing only a little bit.
And on the other side, the benefits of using iOS over Android spyware outweighs the cons now.
I haven't seen new data from celbrite in awhile, but I believe that grapheneos was the only truly secure phone from it for both bfu and afu as of a couple years ago.
Apple lost my confidence after they removed Advanced Device Encryption for British users (plus implemented age verification for them).
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/14344-cellebrite-premium-ju...
I think it's been said that nobody has yet cracked Apple's Lockdown Mode, but that's likely not truly comparable?
iPhones with Lockdown Mode enabled have definitely been exploited which is confirmed by leaked documents and statements from commercial exploit vendors. Lockdown Mode primarily reduces attack surface in Safari and from Apple services. It does very little to protect against other attack vectors such as messaging apps or physical data extraction.
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/105120
You're thinking of Apple saying they haven't detected a case of a device with Lockdown Mode exploited in the wild themselves. Extremely few devices use Lockdown Mode and Apple has very little insight into successful exploits so there isn't much opportunity for them to detect it in the first place. Lockdown Mode bundles everything together and has very inconvenient changes many people won't accept. That greatly reduces usage even by people fully aware of it who want a lot of what it provides. For example, there's
Apple has said they haven't seen a case of a device with Lockdown Mode being exploited which is extremely misleading. Apple doesn't have that much visibility into devices being exploited and would mostly seen failed attempts. All of the Lockdown Mode functionality being bundled together contributes to it barely being used. There's no opt-out system for most of it beyond disabling it as a whole. Only a subset of the Safari restrictions can be partially disabled per-app and per-site which doesn't fully restore web compatibility. It's more that hardly anyone is using it and that Apple doesn't have much insight into apps and the OS being exploited successfully in the first place. Lockdown Mode is definitely useful but people should read about what it actually does and compare that to how devices get exploited. Apple's memory corruption exploit protections aren't tied to Lockdown Mode.
How is then law enforcement getting what they need from people's iphones? Because I understand they do, in some way. And I'm not asking about forcing people to hand over pin or fingerprints, but just by themselves.
Lockdown Mode is focused on reducing the attack surface from Safari including the WebView and Apple services including iMessage/FaceTime. It does nearly nothing to protect against non-browser/non-messaging attack vectors in the OS or other apps. It's up to app developers to implement similar restricted modes and also baseline exploit protections. App developers need to explicitly opt-in to using the standard exploit protections used in many parts of the OS and Apple discourages doing it:
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/Xcode/enabling-enh...
Here is one example how: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47716490
iPhone security is a myth. This is because you can't scan iPhone for threats, so Apple can pretend they don't happen. iOS is probably the least secure platform there is thanks to the security by obscurity approach by Apple.
You can use iPhone being blissfully unaware it has malware on it even in Lockdown mode (which is essentially cope mechanism and Apple way of saying "we care about security, trust us bro").
Can I plug iphone via usbc and access photos and videos directly and rest of the filesystem directly? Thats my flow, I am not buying a phone which has this artificially disabled 'for my own good', while being unix under the bonnet. Insult to my intelligence and all that.
You really think Apple doesn't gather data on what you do on your devices? This notion that Android == spyware is so old and boring but HN just loves Apple.
I'm sure they do collect data but not to the point that they hamper functionality. They still focus first and foremost on usability, functionality whereas Google focus on collecting data, serving ads and then on functionality.
But yeah, there is no doubt in my mind that they both collect as much as they can.
Google gets nearly all of its revenue from targeted advertising, and Apple does not. Apple has an incentive to restrict or completely deny third-party data collection, because they’ve made privacy a major part of their brand marketing and there is major reputational risk to Apple for being caught lying about this. Apple’s “Ask App Not To Track” feature made such a measurable dent in the revenue of various surveillance tech companies that they complained about it, loudly, including Meta paying for a full-page ad in the New York Times about it.
There are multiple objective reasons to believe that Apple is a more trustworthy actor here than other companies, including vulgar capitalistic reasons.
You can just say “pfft, wow, you really believe that?”, I guess, but if that’s your position there’s no reason to argue about this with you.
Apple's ad revenue is growing massively past few years, projected to be 13 billion revenue stream next year. Where do you think those ads are ending up, and do you really believe they are non-targeted? So while your statements are still somewhat valid, not that much and not for that long.
Also, for anybody from outside of US, its US 3-letter agencies that pose biggest actual security risk since US laws treat us as sub-humans. Apple is as translucent to those as Android. But I get it, its still much easier to make PR campaign based on security for Apple than Android.
While not equivalent to a true iOS app, PWA is a decent option that allows you to circumvent the app store restrictions. If you are trying to build apps primarily for yourself, it's a decent option.
Actually I have been tinkering with PWA as a way to remake some of my toy apps. Though a lot of the automations I made for Android can be replicated through Apple’s Shortcuts app.
The biggest loss for me was Termux. I had lots of scripts and such that I ran, plus just having a Linux environment in my pocket was nice. Luckily I found ish which gives me alpine Linux on top of a virtual x86 machine as provided by a JITC layer. I can host PWA apps out of that environment for local use. Of course I can also ssh to my unix like machines from there too.
I am starting to tinker with swift a bit more too. As with google, I could buy a dev key to deploy my own apps only this way I have all the window dressing and end to end encryption on cloud storage.
Doesn’t that require you to host it and have it available on the open web, though? Is there a host that allows you to, for free, not only HTML/CSS/JS but also access to arbitrary tools and bespoke scripts on the backend?
For free? No, but if you built a native app that needed a backend, you'd still need to host the backend somewhere too. I host my own web apps from a cheap mini pc at home and access them over tailscale for personal use.
I host my app on GitHub pages for free. But yes, it's just static which is really all you need with how powerful wasm and JavaScript are.
Yeah it stands for Progressive Web App - but there are lots of hosting solutions with generous free tiers.
I host a bunch of my own PWAs on Cloudflare using Pages and Workers. It's been free so far.
I'm pretty sure that if you build your PWA in a way it works offline through caching (which is easy if it's just a static website), you could host/serve it temporarily and just install it once.
As a lark, I built a set of personal productivity apps that are delivered as standalone local webpages. Works surprisingly well on Android, haven't tested on iOS.
Have PWAs stopped working on Android, or something?
I love PWAs. I just hope they never get too popular, or Google will kill them.
This is not true, running your code on your phone with Xcode has always been free.
With a free account, it needs to be reinstalled every 7 days because the signature expires. It's hardly convenient for personal use.
even worse - if you need to build some app with entitlements or some features likes push notifications etc then you need non-free account
I would like to mention that although I’m aware of the limitations, I think it is worth designing and advocating for web app standards that could even at some point become a viable competitor to native apps, especially for apps that really don’t need to be native/wrapped apps in the first place since most are CRUDs anyways.
Maybe this will be a catalyst towards further evolution of the web app as Android devs want to carve out some freedom from the world domination corporate shadow government walled gardens.
You're not wrong, but it will always be the case that the web platform lags native. There will always be stuff you can't do without a native client. The proportion of apps that it's viable to run as a PWA will probably increase over time, but the platforms have both the ability and incentive to stay out ahead.
Most apps can be a PWA nowadays. A Hetzner VPS costs roughly the same as the Apple dev membership. Saying this as a native iOS dev since iOS 4. For your average pretty json printer you don’t need to go native.
Offline PWA sites are very limited on iOS. If you force close Safari, look at your phone funny, or don’t visit the site regularly, the cache is cleared and you are stuck at a loading screen until you have internet again.
That’s what forced me to finally bite the bullet and pay Apple yearly so I could develop an app for my friends and I to use. Would have much rather kept it as a PWA.
Yeah they can’t make it too easy to bypass the App Store :( I don’t think that’s a super strong argument though. Native apps have downsides as well.
[flagged]
Every 7 days, forever?
At some point you have the thing working to your satisfaction and just want to continue using it.
Hell, maybe you just want it to not break during a long vacation.
Or maybe everything is normal, but, oops, you forgot the last renewal and it stops working exactly the moment you needed it most.
Heck, even "tinkerers" might want it to keep working during a long vacation.
Or maybe it's a normal day, and, oops, you forgot the last manual renewal, and now it's busted at exactly the moment you needed it most.
Going on vacation and want to continue dogfooding?
It happens. Sometimes you're done making updates to a personal app you use that you wrote.
Even free-er with Expo and React Native. Course then you have to touch JavaScript ;)
This is not true either. At some point you had to pay. But it’s been a long time since they made it free (with caveats).
What an insane song and dance to run software.
>free
You forgot to factor in the cost of a Mac.
You don't need a computer to develop Android apps?
All you need is a phone: https://github.com/atamshkai/Android-Studio-On-Android-Phone
I remember running kali linux once on my phone with (termux+vnc) and a vnc viewer app watching some random youtube videos a few years back
So I feel like, Something like this was/is possible but its immensely hard for something like this being used especially when a desktop os on a phone is so bad ergonomically speaking unless you have a keyboard mouse connected
A better option iirc is to use something like kivy[0] directly with termux, not sure if java might have direct options too or not.
[0]: https://github.com/kivy/python-for-android
You can use _any_ computer to make Android apps. For iOS you strictly need a Mac.
You aren't even limited to android apps. You can install termux and write and compile your own code to run from there or to copy and run anywhere else.
No. You can upload your apps on your iPhone for free. You just need an Apple ID.
Sorry, even as a developer, "but, you can use ADB" is a big big copout.
What's the next step when ADB requires some hoops to enable? Will we say that but the eMMC has an unencrypted EXT4 partition, we can just desolder and write into it?
It's not a copout, it's a comparison to iOS. You're seeing an argument they didn't make.
As a dev, i'd say having to use adb is a minor inconvenience.
Still unacceptable, a better option would be to use something like lineage or some other aosp distro without the google services (hoping that nothing makes you dependent on them).
This still doesn't address the vast majority of people though (and that's what I'm concerned about the most).
What we need now is:
- short term, work on pushing apps not to depend on the google services so phones preinstalled with something like /e/ become a viable option for most people. Push our public services to stop mandating Google and Apple OSes for random stuff.
- longer term, work on making alternatives to Android and iOS viable options for most people (stability, usability and availability of services people use). The best candidate for that today is Linux mobile.
Breaking network effect around proprietary services is one of the strategies towards this.
Another one is reducing our reliance on computers (of any shape) altogether, maybe.
There are ways to wrap adb in a friendly interface. I can totally see a desktop based manager and marketplace for phone apps as a workaround.
Not. You don’t need to pay $100 to upload your app to an iPhone, even with XCode for iOS 26
Technically not but the devil is in the details. Having to reinstall the app every 7 days and a limit of one app doesn’t even pass the bare minimum.
Jolla has a prelaunch campaign, decent phones for 200€. I might just as well grab one. Sick of having a phone which is more expensive than my laptop but I can barely use.
The limit is 3 apps AFAIK
Imagine Windows limited you to three apps. How is this acceptable?
Imagine Windows was free.
Wait, I can download and run iOS on my own hardware? Not that I have tried, but I always thought Apples whole schtick was you were only allowed to run their software on their latest X revisions of their hardware?
Imagine if you paid for Windows and didn’t get adverts.
Isn't keeping ADB enabled (most people who do this don't enable it and then promptly disable it) a huge security problem? ADB enabled means an adversary can completely own your device and "back it up" by simply plugging it in.
This is much worse than nagging about "untrusted sources".
No, there's a trust-on-first-use procedure where you have to accept the computer's key on your phone.
Not only is it TOFU but that comment is doubly wrong because you can't really back up much other than the bulk storage directory without adb root (which requires a custom build, which obviates the issue to begin with).
Apple has the same thing, but for some reason added Developer Mode which you must enter on the iPhone first. It’s quite involved, with a restart and 3 confirmation dialogs. That had me wondering why they are suddenly so cautious around this.
>ADB enabled means an adversary can completely own your device and "back it up" by simply plugging it in.
each adb host has to be individually white-listed by an unlocked device. also the current behavior is that it auto forgets any white listed host that hasn't connected within 7 days.
No it's not. Your computer creates a unique ID and you have to accept that on the unlocked phone the first time (or every time if you choose to).
So even when adb is on an attacker can't just plug into your phone and use it. Besides, I just switch it off when I don't use it
Here is a table I just made (edit: changed to list as HN wraps code blocks now), of iOS vs Android (now) vs Android (after Sep 2026 or 2027 or whenever these announced changes take effect):
•1. Where most users can install software from:
↠↠ iOS: official store (App Store) + (in EU) other stores
↠↠ Android (now): official store (Play Store), other stores (e.g. F-Droid), arbitrary APKs
↠↠ Android (after changes): official store (Play Store), other stores (e.g. F-Droid), arbitrary APKs
•2. Who the developers of software can be:
↠↠ iOS: registered developers ($99/year)
↠↠ Android (now): any developer
↠↠ Android (after changes): registered developers ($25 one-time) + hobbyists (small distribution) + any developers (for advanced users)
•3. Installing your own apps on your own phone, without becoming a registered developer:
↠↠ iOS: using XCode: need to reinstall every 7 days.
↠↠ Android (now): using ADB
↠↠ Android (after changes): using ADB
The second row (•2) is what is changing in Android. I think "the ability to run my own code on my own device", narrowly speaking, is closest to the third row, which is not changing.
Android does indeed still look better. But, I would not consider having to send a copy of my government ID to Google, or having them be able to block apps when so ordered by government, to be acceptable.
I agree it’s not acceptable. so then iOS is just as not acceptable as it has all the same issues and worse. this thread started as switching to iOS
I agree with you that iOS is just as not acceptable, and don't plan to switch to it myself.
Yeah but the situation used to be you don't need to jump through flaming hoops on android and you do need to jump through flaming hoops on ios for installing. Now it's you have to jump through X flaming hoops on android and X+Y on ios for installing. If I'm not going to jump through flaming hoops then I'm not installing so it doesn't matter what Y is in the equation and I'm not taking into account installing when comparing those devices, which mean ios might be a better proposition.
Alternatively if the difficulty of moving from 0->X is not negligible but moving from X->X+Y is then I may still be installing but I'm not considering the Y in the comparison then either. i.e. If I have to show my id to google once and apple twice it's the initial showing that is the turn off, or if it's the action of getting my credit card out in the 1st place rather than the cost difference that concerns me.
Comment about point 2: As a CEO who recently tried to make personal Android and iOS Dev accounts for my hobby apps on my +20 year old Google and Apple accounts, let me just say that the processes are alot more complicated to apply than is pointed out here.
The key difference being that when I needed help I called Apple Support who transfered me once to their EU Developer support who, while I talked to him, setup and approved my Dev account. While my Google account still is in pending limbo with their new verification system with no support to contact... I have since giving up getting access after multiple tries.
So Google changes do hit alot harder than the summery makes it seem.
Nitpick: It’s written Xcode. Lowercase c.
> stop being yours
As if most android maker phones don't already fully own your device - preventing you from unlocking of bootloader and installing an OS that actually doesnt enforce the restriction google is introducing in their flavour of android.
To pretend that with this change android becomes exactly like iOS is... ridiculous? I can pick any 10yo old android phone from my drawer and develop for it, no problem and without asking for permissions. And if I'm already this motivated I'm certainly motivated enough to wait 24hs on future (more locked down) devices.
Do you think people who download NewPipe and alike - to circumvent ads and enable premium features - would think twice because they need to wait 24hs? Will NewPipe devs stop developing (anonymously) because of a small fraction of users who refuse to (or won't) go through unlocking steps?
Show me all these "rebel" apps on iOS ecosystem that can be easily distributed on any channel: fdroid, github, telegram groups, etc.
But sure, if you thinking moving to iOS is the same, sounds like you never really made use of any of the freedoms android used to and will continue to provide
I hear what you're saying, especially around just moving to iOS not being a better argument. However with > And if I'm already this motivated I'm certainly motivated enough to wait 24hs on future (more locked down) devices.
But I don't think that's the point. It's a continual erosion of people's ability to use hardware _they own_ in ways _they want_ under the guise of 'security' - which to be fair google does fuck all to actually prevent malicious, scammy and misleading apps from appearing on their play store.
Like, why make it harder _at all_? I develop Android apps for a company that is used only internally. I don't want to have to release apps to the play store so that they have to go through a bs review period before I can get them out the door users. Currently I have a <10m turn around from starting the build to having an app in user's hands, ready to go... Every other time we've had to use the play store it's 2+ days, and they don't test or verify anything meaningful.
I recognize my experience isn't universal, but I'm pretty opposed to changes like this. I'm not American so I don't really have underlying rhetoric around freedom etc, but this is an impingement and part of continuing anti-consumer trend. Google's not the only one, but certainly the one under the spotlight here.
> It's a continual erosion of people's ability to use hardware _they own_ in ways _they want_ under the guise of 'security' - which to be fair google does fuck all to actually prevent malicious, scammy and misleading apps from appearing on their play store.
A lot of people don't seem to understand this and point out that Android is still more open and free than iOS, but iOS has never been about openness and freedom. People believed in Android, and in Google. Now they either see Google betraying them (once again) or only see the Android vs iOS comparison, forgetting about the implications about autonomy, agency and about the future of Android. Many people don't care which actors control their digital lives and what motivations they have. People should be made aware that Google is on their side and that they have shown many times that they have no honor.
> People believed in Android, and in Google.
I wonder why. The last time I considered believing in Android was in 2008 when I was choosing between getting an Android phone or Openmoko phone. Went with the latter and never regretted, as Android quickly turned out to be a disappointment. This is just the continuation of the slow crawl they've been on since 20 years ago and it's been really obvious that it's going to happen. The answer is to reject Android just like iOS, not to keep hoping that inevitable isn't going to happen.
In the words of a Great American:
AFAIK there is more to that quote and it is usually misrepresented.
I think the excerpt fits well enough for my intent.
Lincoln?
Benny.
It's the slippery slope that's the issue, 24hrs is just the first iteration of the restriction. After couple of iteration of restrictions, they could force everyone to have govt-id approved by goog to install any app.
No, Android still offers way more features than iOS.
Replace the lock screen with a custom app
Replace the home screen with a custom app
Set default apps for SMS, phone service, assistant, camera, photo gallery. all things you can not change on iOS
Always on widgets and dynamic wallpapers
It has a much more customizable inter app communication system so that you can get more apps to be the default viewers
At allows true background tasks like say a BitTorrent client
It supports shared storage like SMB and a user accessible file system
Custom NFC apps
USB host mode
Multiple users/profiles
And about 70 other things
As a wise man once said - Android when you want to do thing TO your phone, iOS when you want do to thing with your phone.
I will do the same if they lock down Android. If I must be in a walled garden, then I'm going to choose the better kept garden, and it sure as hell isn't Google's. There is absolutely zero reason to tolerate the shittiness of Android if they take away the relative freedom it gives us. GrapheneOS is the last hope of the Android ecosystem, and if Google keeps locking things down that's not going to last either.
I still remember how Google execs were using the word "open" almost as a comma. Android was Open, Google was Open, this was so different from the Closed Apple World. Everything would be Open!
I hope we will remember this lesson and learn from it. Calling something "open" doesn't make it so, and anything owned by a large corporation will eventually succumb to the direction taken by the corporation. And large corporations have goals where you, the user, are not a consideration, you are just a part of their money-making machinery.
GrapheneOS is the answer. Apple's software is really buggy compared to Android and Linux.
Or /e/
/e/OS is not (y)our friend. The CEO of Murena says that security hardening is only pedophiles and spies:
https://mastodon.social/@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social/116353...
https://www.clubic.com/actualite-604786-murena-e-os-intervie...
They spread the same narrative as the governments/organizations that push Chat Control, age verification, etc.
Weird way to promote the /e/ project.
Your first sentence and that last link are practically at war with each other.
GrapheneOS is significantly more secure, more private, and more free. Not sure why you would use /e/.
I can see the alure of having a very secure mobile device and can understand why you personally wouldn't see a reason to use anything else.
But Graphene requires too much fidling to get spouse approval.
/e/ might not be as secure as GrapheneOS but it is at least as secure as everything else. Plus it actively helps you preserve your privacy and use self hosted services.
and limited to one type of device that not everyone can get or wants.
Only because this is the one family of the devices secure enough to even bother with software security.
It's not their fault (plus since 2027 we expect the first Motorola handset secure enough tu be supported by GOS)
And at least they don't cheat on patches :)
Because in order to use Graphene, you have to financially support the same company that is making Android less free.
At the end of the cycle of a Pixel model, they are heavily discounted. So much that it's probably close to hardware + development cost. Google probably expects to make a profit from Google One subscriptions, Play purchases, and ads.
By installing GrapheneOS, you are giving them nothing.
they're working on it. GrapheneOS has serious plans to get a phone made for them. even more serious now that Google has become openly hostile to their project by no longer publishing the Pixel device tree when new releases come out.
Google could invest in Graphene as a hedge.
Well, for one you can actually buy an /e/ device right now.
Also, once you have it, it just works.
Some people like that.
You get a device that still runs proprietary Google blobs in privileged processes (for Play Integrity), talks a lot with Google, gives certain Google applications (like Google Maps) higher privileges than normal Android apps (you can find the signing keys of apps that get elevated privileges in the source code of the /e/OS microG fork), uploads your speech to OpenAI for speech to text, uses a shady middleman (which they do not want to reveal the owner of) for installing F-Droid apps [1], and is hopelessly behind on Linux kernel versions, firmware blobs, and Android security patches (remember that Android Security Bulletins only have backports of high/critical patches).
I wouldn't recommend anyone to use /e/OS. Either they are very incompetent or they are very shady.
[1] https://info.cleanapk.org
That link you shared in your other comment actually counters your "runs google blobs" argument.
Speech to text is afaik completely anonymized and if you care that much, it actually is possible to just not use it, rip it out or even replace it with something that runs locally in your home.
> hopelessly behind on Linux kernel versions
Can you substantiate that? Given that many OEMs still run linux 4 and 5 in their Flagship ROMs today, I'd like to see how open source does so much worse.
>Well, for one you can actually buy an /e/ device right now. Also, once you have it, it just works.
Does that not apply to GOS?
If there's one thing I've learned about the custom Android community (and to a lesser extent, the Android community) it's that "it actually works" isn't really important or convincing to them.
[flagged]
Maybe you're just used to your flavors of jank so you don't see it? Your goal is to get off windows, but I've had only Linux on my home computers for ~10 years and it's been working great the whole time. Literally nothing I can think of to complain about.
It's been a few years since I had to use OSX for work, but last I used it, you couldn't maximize windows without a 1+ second animation playing when you cmd+tabbed, which made maximizing completely useless. Docker was also super slow. There's no package manager and the usual recommendation (brew) for a third party one is trash that will update programs you didn't ask it to when you're installing something else. IIRC external monitors are completely unusable from blurry text.
I used a windows laptop recently for a year or so for work. Absolute jank. Sleep was just broken. Like wouldn't sleep/spin down the fan with the lid closed unless I unplugged it. Often completely frozen requiring hard reboots when opening the lid. Leaving it "sleeping" for an extended period would still heavily drain the battery. WSL barely works. For some reason I have to care whether things are in my Windows or Linux home directory. Wrong one and git commands take seconds. I'd get environment mismatches where the terminal in VSCode would fail to run commands that run in a normal CLI, etc. DNS would break inside WSL because it wouldn't propagate config from DHCP. UI is just slow to respond to anything. If you start typing in the start menu search (e.g. "shut down" or "power off"), the menu replaces itself with a different one, and you can't find the power options until you close and reopen the menu.
>Maybe you're just used to your flavors of jank so you don't see it?
That's a throwaway line, everyone is used to their own flavors of jank, even on Linux.
>Your goal is to get off windows, but I've had only Linux on my home computers for ~10 years and it's been working great the whole time, Literally nothing I can think of to complain about.
I think you're trying to read too much into a comment and trying to poke holes...I don't have any Windows, if that wasn't clear. Since we're flexing about experience...I've been doing this since RH 7.2 came in the back of a book 20+ years ago and deploying production Linux services for about the same at a large scale but whatever.
Everything has its flavor of jank, and for most people, Linux is a flavor of jank just barely too far over the horizon still. But, once again, far better than what it ever was 20 years ago, and has the potential to pass Windows at least here soon. But, one of the biggest hurdles especially for adoption is, well, the community, 90% of which think they're one step away from being Linus simply because they installed Arch following a tutorial, and they treat new users the same way for no good reason as they tell the same new users "it's Easy!"
You must be one of the luckier Linux users I guess. I have heard of them, but I've had plenty of convos where once you actually dig into things it's usually not as truthful and playing to the crowd on an internet forum _about Linux_ for confirmation.
>It's been a few years since I had to use OSX for work, but last I used it, you couldn't maximize windows without a 1+ second animation playing when you cmd+tabbed
I use it every day for work, for heavy eng work. Let's be honest, yes there's an animation delay to some degree, but this is trafficking a bit in hyperbole here. GNOME has basically the same behavior for many aspects including switching workspaces by default...which can be turned off in both. The Cinnamon or KDE default experience is better in this regard.
>Docker was also super slow
Only issue I've had with Docker on a Mac with speed is when I'm trying to use some hefty x64 images on ARM macOS (I still have a last model i7 MBA for fun too), which is expected, same with VMs. I've run some pretty gnarly full stack apps, some that included Java backends that needed up to 8gb because reasons, without issue as long as I built an ARM image.
>There's no package manager and the usual recommendation (brew) for a third party one is trash that will update programs you didn't ask it to when you're installing something else.
It behaves roughly the same on macOS as it does on Linux, IME. If I'm not explicit on dnf/apt, I get more updates than just what I wanted too. But maybe I'm missing something. It's how I manage all my tooling on the work env and gives me very few issues save usually for only the occasional connection issue which is always attributed to work VPN nonsense.
>IIRC external monitors are completely unusable from blurry text.
Even on a Mac? The ecosystem is designed for professional graphics use, never had an issue there even back to CRT days heavily using all the Adobe suite versions, and even with non-Apple displays. Every Linux setup I've ever used, including this one is janky with external monitors, let alone dual. Even the "Easiest distro in the world" (Mint) according to most Linux nerds is problematic to say the least in trying to use the screen res/layout settings.
>I used a windows laptop recently for a year or so for work. Absolute jank. Sleep was just broken. Like wouldn't sleep/spin down the fan with the lid closed unless I unplugged it. Often completely frozen requiring hard reboots when opening the lid.
A - agreed, I don't work anywhere which requires Windows, because for all my devtooling, it's all tied into a macOS ecosystem, yes, with homebrew for now. Been that way for almost a decade now. Ideally, one should also do a lot in a build container for 1:1 matching so your CI jobs run the same env/toolset/versions. It's better for real dev work and way more stable in a way that won't require you to become a support headache for the company either.
B - what you are describing is a hardware issue and attributing it to Windows. I had the same issue on a B550 series desktop mobo, went to Linux, same exact behavior. This is not an OS issue.
>Leaving it "sleeping" for an extended period would still heavily drain the battery.
To my mind, non-mac laptops are garbage for battery life, everyone knows this, and yeah if it wasn't sleeping for real it's gonna eat up resources. This is more a hardware issue than anything, not the OS layer. Put Linux on it and I could almost guarantee you would have had similar issues, I've dealt with this like I said w/ the mobo above.
>WSL barely works. For some reason I have to care whether things are in my Windows or Linux home directory. Wrong one and git commands take seconds. I'd get environment mismatches where the terminal in VSCode would fail to run commands that run in a normal CLI, etc. DNS would break inside WSL because it wouldn't propagate config from DHCP. UI is just slow to respond to anything. If you start typing in the start menu search (e.g. "shut down" or "power off"), the menu replaces itself with a different one, and you can't find the power options until you close and reopen the menu.
Man, I have to wonder....was this not using latest/WSL2 and instead using WSL1? Because there _is_ a massive leap between the two. It's not ideal compared to native on Linux or even mac but still works quite well for many use cases. When the WSL2 upgrade came back when I was forced in a past env to use a Windows laptop, myself and 4 other Devs could run our full stack including Kafka locally without much issue on WSL2 other than producing heat on the laptop b/c of how many services we were running. (About 35 .NET Core microservices at the time, along with redis, Kafka, etc.). Yes, the home pathing was a tad annoying.
>If you start typing in the start menu search (e.g. "shut down" or "power off"), the menu replaces itself with a different one, and you can't find the power options until you close and reopen the menu.
Yeah every OS seems to have issues with their search/launcher tooling, but the Start Menu has been shit for a while now. I've had more issues on Windows than anything else re: manu defaults (once tweaked on like W10 it's fine), but then Linux, and then even macOS...before paring down Spotlight to only search certain things, which made it way better.
shrugs
I think this is one of the challenges of building good software, it's why Apple does what they do. Some experiences on one hardware set are somehow perfect, but they're rare, some are the exact opposite. But a lot comes down to what a user is willing to tolerate, too, and while someone might say it was "Easier on Linux" it's usually just that they're willing to tolerate more terminal madness and odd behaviors than others in their daily driver.
I agree with your sentiment, but I want 100% Linux about a year ago and it's been much better than OSX. Yes, there are downsides - I really miss the iPhone "continuity". But the bugs, gatekeeper, liquid glass, ads in system settings, etc in OSX dwarf the rough edges on Linux desktop.
For non-power users OSX is still a no-brainer, but for a programmer I feel like Apple's left us no alternative.
Now you just have to deal with Apple's hostile repairability situation. Cryptographically-mated parts are just the beginning.
I used to own a house, I could decorate it the way I wanted. It was hard work, but it was mine!
Then they locked it, so I went to live in a luxury hotel, it's more expensive, I can't decide how I want it and I don't own anything, but it's such a superior experience!
Some want ownership, some want experience. People differ, who might have thought.
it's not the choice, it's the argument: OP seems to be happy to give up freedom (he or she initially cherished) because everything now is crap anyways, so let's just bathe in shit and celebrate it...
So you moved into a walled garden in an attempt to escape what's essentially a 3 foot picket fenced garden.
If there are two walled gardens, you might as well choose the prettier one.
Or choose freedom. I've been enjoying GrapheneOS for a couple of years now and recommend it.
Do you run into issues with apps not supporting it? Things like banking or auth? That is the main complaint I see for alternative phone OSes, and I don't know if that has gotten any better.
I've been dailying GrapheneOS for more than 2 years. I haven't had any issues with any of my bank apps. Although there are apparently some that do block usage on non-google-certified OSs. The only limitation in my use cases pre-GrapheneOS that I've found is not being able to make NFC payments through Google Wallet, but I found a bank in my country whose app implemented NFC payments, and made an account with them to be able to convenintly pay with my phone.
edit: and I'd like to add, GrapheneOS brought me back the joy of using my phone. Since 2018 or so I started to dread my phone (and the internet) more and more. Installing GrapheneOS brought back the joy on using these marvelous computers (and self-hosting brought back the joy of using the internet)
There are essentially two separate issues here.
The first is the anti-trust angle. Some subset of bank apps don't work because of attestation and that's a significant barrier to adoption for switching to competitors, so it ought to be an anti-trust violation for the platform to do that.
The second is, you try it and discover that your bank doesn't work. If you want it bad enough you can switch banks, and the fact that it doesn't work is a signal that your bank has a weak security team who is just cargo culting deleterious vendor nonsense without evaluating whether it has any real security value.
(The use case for attestation is completely orthogonal to bank apps because it can't prevent credential stealing from compromised phones running a fake app since the fake app won't require attestation, and it can't prevent attackers from using stolen credentials to transfer funds because once they have the credentials they can just use a normal phone, and that's the case even if the attestation was completely airtight, which it isn't. Meanwhile the devices that can pass attestation are generally more vulnerable because it implies they're running the more-likely-to-be-outdated OS that came with the device rather than a third party upgrade with more recent patches, so they're essentially encouraging their customers to not upgrade their OS. Banks that do this are wearing clown makeup and you have to ask if you trust them with your money.)
GrapheneOS user here, on my only phone, aka my daily.
I love my phone and when I replace it, I will be flashing GrapheneOS again. This is my second phone with it so far, and roughly year 4 or 5.
With that said, it isn't for everyone. I definitely remember some issues upon first install, a learning curve if you want to call it that. I also introduce intentional obstacles in certain "workflows" in my life that dissuade certain usage, like excessive social media use. With that said, I no longer remember what I introduced myself and what was an OS characteristic. I do remember having frustrations with most banking apps IF I didn't log into the play store mirror. Since I'm "hardcore" and am not willing to sign into a Google product on my phone, they just don't work. However I don't think they would be an issue for most people.
If you are on the fence, you can make a backup of your phone, try it out, and if you don't like it, you can reinstall the default Android and restore your backup. I've done it before when I used my previous GrapheneOS phone for store credit for my next phone, and figured they'd want a factory reset default OS on there.
The replies whenever this question is asked remind me of when I used to have a Windows Phone and was trying to convince myself it was the best phone on the market. Yeah, I couldn't use YouTube because Google blocked Microsoft's YouTube app; and I wasn't able to deposit my paychecks because my bank didn't have a Windows Phone app or mobile deposit support on their website; and sure, using Messenger or Snapchat (which was exploding at the time) meant using somebody's reverse-engineered WP version of those apps...
But look at all the information I can get from the Live Tiles! Oh and isn't Cortana neat! A little more self-flagellation for the penitent ones who've traded corporate app stores for daily inconvenience.
Whatever issues I've run into I've been able to work around. I don't use tap-to-pay with the phone at all so that's not an issue. The things I get in return for using GrapheneOS all outweigh any downsides.
My bank detected someone logging in with my password from a GrapheneOS phone and made me change my password and scan my face. That was dumb.
With that out of the way, and the device now seemingly authorized, it still doesn't work, because when I log in, the app restarts. That could be a real compatibility problem.
Yeah, I tried that out last year when this whole debacle was announced for the first time.
I'm not going back to paying without my phone. So yeah, I'm not going to a free platform either.
the choice really is mostly down to Google's Android or iOS - unless you're ready to make sacrifices. If you are... More power to you! I'm not (at this point in my life) right now.
Graphene sounds great in theory. Until you read the device compatibility page and see you're still at the mercy of Google. In order to support graphene you must first pay Google for one of the most expensive android devices on the market. Oh and Google never sold this device in my country so I guess I'm out of luck even if I wanted to do that.
> Until you read the device compatibility page and see you're still at the mercy of Google.
Alternate take: good. I'd rather the GrapheneOS team pick standardized (if limited) hardware configurations to support and then spend their (many multiples less than Google) resources on the platform rather than device compatibility.
The Android OEM diversity mean the time/economics of supporting every phone with a non-Google OS were never going to work, and I'd rather have it working well on a limited number of platforms than poorly on more.
Firmware engineering and patching sucks and delivers little value to the user, because best case (you solved the issue or patched the hardware errata) something basic that a user expects is now working.
Nobody is going to switch to a platform because a phone can now make calls. Even if there are 1000+ human hours in patching some cheap clone LTE chip it uses.
Motorola devices that match the GrapheneOS requirements are coming next year. It's good thing they're not compromising on hardware requirements that would undermine the goals of the project. If there's anyone to blame it's the dismal state of affairs on the hardware security side of my most Android phone manufacturers.
This will not help you in your country, but in places where it is sold, you can buy used one of the prior generation phones, which are also supported.
My plan is to follow and hop on this train, hope it’s available in other countries also:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47214645
Unfortunately, there is no way to use Google Pay on it. I'm all for trading some convenience for privacy, but not having to carry all my cards is too much of a convenience for me :(
I've heard of people using curve pay instead.
Uh huh. Freedom. In some empty rhetorical sense. Meanwhile you still have 99.999% of the usual obligations.
Go freely walk out your local supermarket without paying.
But your Android phone is unlocked #winning
>Go freely walk out your local supermarket without paying.
that's your definition of freedom?
It's an example of constraints that still apply.
Don't pay taxes. Steal cars, punch Trump, call a black person the N-word ... see how it goes
Paper and pencil offer a far more blank canvas compared to the very specific hardware constraints of a phone, and ecosystem of software limited to the common languages
Software dev and use is, comparatively, heavily constrained and on rails compared to sitting by a tree and imagining
To buy the phone ones agency is coupled to the subset of legitimate options to make money
Same for electricity to charge it, battery replacement, screen repair if it breaks.
Really just quickly becomes a ball and chain
So free!
Are you comparing installing apps on your phone to theft?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I use Android and iOS regularly and while Android's ugly, it's slightly less ugly.
GrapheneOS.
For an Android user, iOS offers better privacy (which can change at any time), but it also comes baked in with better support for some open protocols. (SMB on Files, and CalDAV/CardDAV for Calendars/Contacts/Notes integration). This has been the case for years, while aspects of the 'walled garden' have eroded over time.
It's natural that this huge Android regression might be enough for someone to dip their toes into the other side.
> iOS offers better privacy
No, it markets lockin dressed up as privacy. Convincing you that they are the same thing is the real magic here.
No, it might sound smart, but it's incorrect to equivocate. You don't need to "lock in" to Apple's services either. Apple has a meaningfully better track record than Google on privacy in many regards.
(Apple's Terms of Service is also much better, for not having an arbitration clause anywhere except the Apple credit card, with a very easy opt-out flow.)
If you cant beat them join them
If you are stuck in a walled garden either way, might at least try to get the benefits of it.
The iOS app store is like the craigslist personals of online markets. I feel incredibly dirty just going on there. I have to scroll down 3-5 options just to find the exact match for what I searched for, many of the prioritized options being look-alikes that could easily fool people into installing some malware-esque garbage.
I love my 13 mini as a phone, but I don't understand how anyone could compare the two app stores and think iOS comes out on top. At least android has f-droid.
I almost never go to the app store to find an app, but I can understand how that would be really frustrating. Sounds like they need to get serious about curating the app store content.
From my perspective, the walled garden value I get is predominantly in the integrations between my phone, macbook, and watch. And to a lesser extent (because it's a bit buggy at times) the family integrations.
Integrations makes sense, but I'm 100% sold on linux/PCs at this point and I don't care about wearables so my phone is just a phone. Luckily I'm not on the app store much, but if the walled garden is a cesspool already then maybe opening the gates a bit isn't such a bad idea.
Includes status symbol and ecosystem lock!
If it is a status symbol, it really ain't working for me. I must be doing something wrong.
It depends where. In Spain people use it for that because iPhones are incredibly expensive here compared to the standard of living. What doesn't help is that the SE/e models are also way more expensive than in the US.
As a result it's mainly rich people and tourists that own them. Most people use budget android phones, the kind that still come with 3,5mm jacks. You still see wired earphones a lot.
So does Android, but without the status symbol, the high res screen, or the integration with your laptop.
I haven't found the need for deeper integration with my laptop beyond what KDE connect is capable of, and my Pixel has a high enough resolution that I can't notice pixels :)
It's probably worth mentioning that as far as i know this change does not affect AOSP phones[1]. I'm currently living with a Kyocera flip-phone[3] for the past few years. I even got F-droid installed, though it turned out to not work all that great on a flip. I wish more people wrote apps for flips. I keep intending to look into writing my own APK if i ever get the chance. As i understand it, it's a bit like The Wild West, though there are places where you can get flip-phone apps[2] like maps, media players, messengers, etc.. i just never seem to have time to look more into this(and i'm a little concerned about getting scammed). I did manage recently to successfully tether my old touch-phone to my flip for a car trip i took, so i could get data to the touch and run maps(i feel somewhat clever to have sidestepped Big Tech on that issue). Hopefully i'll get some time one day to look more into flip-apps.
[1] https://source.android.com/
[2] https://www.apkmirror.com/
[3] https://www.kyoceramobile.com/rugged-devices/duraxv-extreme-...
> the vastly superior apple experience
After switching away from GrapheneOS to iOS after RCS stopped working for me, I can safely say my experience has been the opposite. The camera is the only thing better for me on iOS - everything else is buggier and worse. A few of my favorites:
1. Safari is buggy as hell, and requires installing apps to run things like ad blockers.
2. The settings are ALL over the place and very hard to navigate
3. The gestures are clunky - often have to try a couple times to get one of the settings quick menus to drop down
4. Why is the date not displayed at the top of the screen with the time outside of the lock screen?
5. The pin unlock is horribly broken - I have to slow way down to use it compared to Android.
6. Apple maps is hot garbage. I had to install Google Maps anyway to get decent performance.
7. The handling of audio devices seems intentionally malicious - like if I call someone from my car through car play, it shouldn't send the audio out through the phone earpiece. If a call begins with phone earpiece audio and is underway, it shouldn't switch several seconds in to bluetooth headset half a house.
I'm going back for my next phone.
I'm considering switching to GrapheneOS... What's this about RCS not working?
RCS can be hit or miss on GrapheneOS, but they have made significant progress recently. It requires using Google Messages rather than any other messaging app, and may require enabling an ICC authentication option that is disabled by default. And it may depend on your carrier. RCS is kind of a pain in the butt but the messaging improvements over SMS are substantial which is why I wanted it.
When I first tried last fall I had it working for a few weeks then it stopped entirely delivering messages and I fell back to SMS only. After the recent system updates and enabling the ICC option it has been working well for me.
The official page explains briefly, https://grapheneos.org/usage#rcs
There is a very long discussion threat going back several years that is now considered resolved, which seems to be the case for me. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/1353-using-rcs-with-google-...
RCS barely works on regular Android.
In the last week or so, multiple people have told me they cannot text me. I found that I was getting a "verification limit exceeded" error (perhaps because of my unusual behavior of usually being at work or at home, both which have known wifi networks, and sending maybe half a dozen texts any day?). I got the error to go away for half a day and they were still unable to message during that time, and now that I have it disabled I still appear as online on RCS (yet still unreachable?) so they still cannot message me lol.
I've been on the other end many times across multiple Android devices across multiple years, being able to send messages to some RCS users, being unable to send messages to other RCS users, not being able to receive messages in group chats entirely comprised of Android users, etc.
SMS/MMS: Handled by carriers, you can send messages to people who are offline and they'll get the messages when they turn their phone back on.
Telegram/FbMessenger/Whatsapp/etc: Handled by individual corporations, you can send messages to people who are offline and they'll get the messages when they turn their their device on.
RCS: Handled by both Google and carriers at the same time for some reason, maybe 80% chance of being able to send a message to somebody who's online, let alone offline.
I'm sure there are multiple reasons it was challenging, but Google and friends have not risen to the occasion at all. Truly a garbage protocol.
I've found that RCS works ok-ish on the Owner user, but doesn't work at all on any other (it appears as an empty message). Moving to the Owner account you can tap to redownload the message and then it appears correctly in all accounts. It's a mess that makes daily driving a secondary account not worth it
SMS is pretty horrible yes but I don't know anyone that uses it anymore. The only ones I get are spam from my phone provider and some MFA systems that are stuck in the past. Oh and the odd shipping notification.
RCS I didn't even bother to set up. I don't want to use yet another system. If people want to reach me they have WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram to choose from.
If you don't want to invest in getting your contacts on Signal, you can try OpenBubbles. It gets iMessage on Android devices and works fine.
I highly recommend switching to GOS, it is wayyy better than iOS UX-wise and obviously better privsec and freedom.
One thing that I had to do when I first got GOS, to get a better experience, was find all the Open Source apps that I needed. Otherwise, it looks rather bland and the apps are mid. Once you find the right apps and launcher, everything works much better.
RCS is proprietary so it only works on GrapheneOS if you have Google's Messages app. At least, that was the case a year ago, but I'm assuming it hasn't changed.
On the bright side, Messages works without linking to a Google account
Everyone's using Subversion now ...
> Apple maps is hot garbage. I had to install Google Maps anyway to get decent performance
I hear this and wonder how much must be regional. I'm experiencing the opposite. Apple Maps has gotten quite good, while Google Maps seems to just be rotting away. Both do work reasonably well in my home area of the PNW, but Apple Maps is a bit more polished. But in some places, like recently when I was on a business trip in Austin, Google Maps was comically terrible at routing. I get that partly this is probably because Texas has interesting ideas about designing a road network, but still, Apple got it working just fine.
Same. Google Maps quality has gotten noticeably worse these past 2 years for me. It routinely tries to navigate me to making impossible turns or taking weird and sometimes more dangerous routes just to shave off a potential minute. I started using Apple Maps at the advice of a colleague and it’s given better directions. This is all local. I have no baseline comparison for using maps while on trips.
[dead]
(4) is 100% you having a particular user preference and not a real bug with the system.
Fine, the whole post was explicitly "my experience" but I think it's a reasonable gripe - why is it not configurable, and why did it take me so long to sift through the impenetrable settings structure to figure out that it wasn't configurable?
Agree and many more. I had an iPhone 15 Pro for about six months last year and one of the most infuriating things was that you can't get to Camera settings from Camera, you have to go out to Settings.
I'm on this path too. Waiting a few more months to see what happens. If they indeed block my 4 apps on my phone (which aren't published anywhere), I will simply move to Apple.
Will your 4 unpublished apps be in your android-alternative apple device?
Android will still have the ability to install non-google-distributed programs. The problem is the ominous momentum, but it is still more open than the apple alternative
I'm not the commenter you replied to, but I'm doing the same math they are and coming up with the same answer.
From my perspective iOS is better than Android in a number of ways but Android always won out overall for me, in large part because of the freedom regarding software. Remove that freedom from the equation, I think the balance tips towards iOS.
I always wonder what these unspecified ways that iOS is better than Android actually are.
These posts always have a few comments like that, but they never actually say what they find to be better on iOS.
I'll bite.
For me, Google services are not an option, so my Android experience is sans-Google.
Until September 2025, I'd say iOS had actually gotten better than Android.
CalDAV, CardDAV, and SMB are baked into iOS, whereas these are onerous to set up on Android. These are very very nice protocols, and I use them all daily. (Contacts, Calendars, Notes, Reminders, and Files.)
Apple's developer ecosystem lacks the FOSS devs that make F-Droid so good, but they do have a number of devs who release paid apps with zero tracking, which is very nice. It's often the case an app exists on iOS as a $5 one-time fee with a two-paragraph privacy policy for which one does not exist on Fdroid.
Shortcuts work well enough, homescreen customization is good enough, etc. that a number of the original Android draws are gone. There are a number of points where iOS and Android are equals now.
iCloud's E2EE photo backup is something I reluctantly started using and found to be very nice, after having had de-Googled in 2018. I miss having my photos auto-upload and be available on other devices, and Apple has had iCloud Web for awhile. This is nicer than the options I have on Android.
And while Android's notification-panel tiles have gotten worse over the years (down from six to two controls on the first swipe, this was what alienated me and got me to try iOS), iOS now has a much denser "control center".
The big caveat is the gigantic regression that is iOS 26. The phone is slower, it kills battery, the native apps are constantly crashing, the lockscreen and homescreen often have broken navigation flows, etc. It's a travesty that never should have been released and iOS is easily worse than Android right now. If someone needed a phone today, I couldn't recommend an iPhone, but that might change with iOS 27.
>CalDAV, CardDAV, and SMB are baked into iOS, whereas these are onerous to set up on Android
I can only speak to SMB but it is not hard on Android. I use a longtime third party app so not sure what the state of native support is but it works just fine for me, including over VPN
Which app?
I would guess DAVx⁵.
Sounds like you're Apple now, but would love to hear what you're actually using for DAV on Android if at all?
DAVx5
Yep, AFAIK this is the only working choice on Android. (I could be wrong!)
Install anyapk. It uses a wireless ADB bridge to install whatever you want.
Its more about the principle for me.I know I can jump through hoops for google but I prefer to say no-thank-you.
The long term fear/plan for google is that they know they days of SAAS and Apps are obsolete. People will just write their own platforms, apps, websites all from scratch using AI, which means the app stores becomes obsolete, which means no more ad revenue from shitty ads and no more control and unfettered tracking of your behaviour. AI will make these guys obsolete, they know it, this is them fighting back.
You should switch to GrapheneOS instead.
You mean buy a Google Pixel?
How many people can afford one?
In the USA, I think most people can easily afford a Pixel 9a at $56/year of device support starting from today.
Calculator checks yearly cost based on device support: (https://ibb.co/xq82YQCw)
Sources for device lifetime from calculator: (https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-lifetime)
I used a New+Unlocked+Pixel+X on eBay to find a rough price of the phone.
Most people get scammed by their carrier and pay $25-45 per month just for their wireless subscription, and many more get caught up in the device bundles which gets you the "latest and greatest", at a huge price. So people are paying, per month, what you can pay, per year for a Pixel.
You can use Silent Link to pay by the gigabyte with no expiration date. Most people don't need unlimited—I use a maximum of 5 GB per month, and my average is around 3. At $1.60 per month, that is $60 per YEAR for me.
Swap in https://jmp.chat for another 60 dollars per year for calls/texts and you get a $120/year phone bill which is just $10/month.
I will be moving from US Mobile to Jmp.chat once my plan expires.
You could also use US Mobile for $17/month which is unlimited and is user friendly. They also often have Pixels for a significant discount with no lock-in.
If you're considering buying an iPhone, you can definitely afford a Pixel
Yes, but no pixels in my country.
It's all vector graphics?
eBay International exists and I've shipped my laptops from the US to Bolivia, Guam, Sweden, and before the war, Russia. You can definitely get a Pixel unless maybe you live in the DRC or the PRK
Motorola + Graphene coming 2027. I'm at least waiting to see what comes of that before making any decisions on my next phone.
I am hyped for that partnership—they should have a flip phone supported(don't quote me), among other cool devices.
Not going to be cheaper than Pixels. The chips they need for the hardware security are the flagship Snapdragon chips iirc.
I love my Pixel now, I would have to see where Motorola is better than the Pixels other than the more computing power.
hell yes. I'm glad they found an OEM to work with them.
A Pixel 9a is ~350 Euro here in Europe and it still has better device security (separate secure enclave, MTE, etc.) than pretty much any other phone besides iPhone and other Pixels. Pretty great cameras for the price too. Still supported until 2032 (so presumably also on GrapheneOS).
I get you. I used to buy Nexus devices as well as some of the first Pixels, until at some point the prices shot up to ridiculous levels for a phone and I went with other brands.
Last year though the Pixel 8a was selling for 350€ and I got one. Luckily, given the recent developments. Will be installing GrapheneOS.
I bought an 8a new when it launched for the express purpose of installing GOS. It cost like $450, and will last me most of a decade. If you are using a phone that costs significantly less than that (and I am speaking from personal experience! I had an Obamaphone that I got at a foodbank for many years, as well as a number of crappy used Androids!) your phone storage is so limiting that you are struggling to install more than a few apps.
> If you are using a phone that costs significantly less than that (and I am speaking from personal experience! I had an Obamaphone that I got at a foodbank for many years, as well as a number of crappy used Androids!) your phone storage is so limiting that you are struggling to install more than a few apps.
The only phone I've ever had trouble installing more than a few apps was one with 512MB of storage. If I go check the second result on amazon for android phone it's a solid motorola option, unlocked for $127 and with 128GB. That's more than enough; even some flagships have 128GB.
The "just over $100" range has multiple options with good storage. Below that is a sea of locked/refurbished phones that are also good options in many cases.
Digging deeper I eventually hit a "BLU" brand phone for $50 with only 16GB, and that leaves you with not very much after the OS takes its space. But then you can add $10 to get another 16GB and have more than enough room for apps.
So you have to go really low to have the problem you're describing.
I have never had a cheap phone where OS updates did not make the category in storage swell to take up most of the phone's space.
Hardware may be cheap enough now that budget phones are more useable--32 GB for <$100 is a major improvement.
I'm used to fixed partition sizes. The OS eating into user space sounds pretty ugly. And updates to builtin apps since the last OS update eat space, but only so much.
Regardless, since they have a 16GB model I strongly doubt the 32GB model would ever have less than 16GB of usable space.
I've bought Motorola phones that cost less than half of that and still last for 3-5 years and I've been able to install far more than "a few" apps. Having an SD card slot is great for offloading the big storage uses like photos/video.
Don't have pixels in my country. Apple only alternative. And a bunch of chinese brands which I wont touch in this scenario
That's £105-£150 for first two pixels 6a on ebay.
If you consider getting iPhone you DEFINITELY can afford something much newer than that.
I have recently made the same move... mostly because it allowed me to stop using my google and microsoft accounts. Moved all personal (and family domain) and business from google workspace / O365 all into fastmail. Bought an iPhone (already worked with macs and an iPad for more than a decade. Not about particular preferences but this setup allows me to only be dependent on one bigcorp. Android still requires a google account, the rest was not necessary but I have above all else made a mental switch to simplify.
I do not feel iOS is particularly better... some things are, some things are not. Yes android was more customizable, and yes the universal back and home buttons are still better than the multi tap and hidden gestures on iOS. But overall some pleasantries such as shared clipboard, seamless headphone switch over, and overall simplification so far, is working very well for me.
I simply need a phone on a major platform, as my job (and life) requires to have certain apps which only run on (non-rooted) Android or iOS phones. And I am tired of fighting and adapting.. so I now just use most of the default apps everywhere, and whatever does or does not work, I take it mostly as-is. For now it seems to allow me to just worry less about it and focus on the things I actually want or need to do .. send email, read message, visit a website, listen to a podcast and not fret about the tiniest of UX details.
I would love to live in a world where I could run around with a customized linux laptop and some sort of privacy respecting phone (e.g. Graphene) but the hurdles are not really worth it to me anymore. Sad in a way, as without counter pressure.. things will not necessarily get better, I know. The 22C3 talk by Rop and Frank I think was depressing, and true.
We lost the war.
https://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/fahrplan/events/920.en.h...
So basically—both Apple and Alphabet love the way you think.
Apple still doesn't allow you to control individual app volume to silence/dim certain applications in multi-play mode though, right?
As someone who hates disturbances this is the killer feature that has kept me with samsung - well that and fdroid which is currently endangered.
iOS still more locked down than Google. When I started reading this I thought you were going true open source
> the only value that Android really offered me was the ability to run my own code on my own device. Since they are taking that away
Except they are not. And you can actually do that on iOS.
You have bought a walled garden lock, it can be picked with a walled garden lock.
They are absolutely not taking away your ability to run your own code
But he needed an excuse to buy an iphone
Dumb question, can you explain the benefits of IOS? I've only tried using an iPhone ~10 years ago before I got into tech
It's unbelievably useful within its own walled garden. There are lots of instances where commands, tabs, and other pieces of data transfer seamlessly between your phone and computer. You can bring your phone up as a digital version ON your laptop so you can call, text, etc. straight from it while your phone sits in the bedroom charging or whatever. Everything works really, really well. Their walled garden has always been pretty top-tier.
So would you say that the value of Apple products increases as you have more of them (higher than just the linear benefit of more products)? I've used them, but always as one offs.
For example, Ive had a Mac(book? The one that you connect periphery to use) as a work computer at a previous software job, the iPhone because of a girl I dated who wouldn't be with a green bubble man, and iPad also in a previous job, so never together or actually adopted in personal life, so I didn't get sold.
Yes, significantly. That’s a great way to put it. My dad is all-in, and I’m pretty surprised at how nice things can be.
Still, it’s like a credit card with a fee. It’s great so long as you can pay, but oftentimes it’s a nightmare to get out of if times are tough.
You just proved that the ability of installing whatever apps you want isn't that vital, don't you?
You're in an even worse ecosystem now, an apple phone never even has been yours.
Leaving one abusive partner for another is hardly a win. It's pathetic.
I did this too, but it happened almost 10 years ago when Google started locking down Android in the name of battery life. I saw the writing on the walls and said if Android is going to be just like iOS because we collectively can’t have nice things, then at least I’ll live out that sad reality on better hardware.
Ah yes macOS, the notoriously open platform.
I'm so tired of this false dichotomy. Sent from my daily driver Librem 5 running GNU/Linux.
This is literally the dumbest take I have seen!
iOS charges you and limits your custom app until a few days and you have to "renew" Even before this change, I have my custom apps running forever.
[dead]
[dead]
> "dismiss more scare screens"
This whole website is a scare screen. There's a lot that is not being said on this page, such as the advantages of the new system, and the motivations of the authors of this site.
There's a reasonable discussion to be had about trade-offs here, but this is entirely one sided, in somewhat bad faith in my personal opinion.
Sometimes reality is one sided, I personally see zero advantage to the new system.
And I don't see how this change adresses the number one source of scams, the Play Store.
Is the Play Store the number one source of scams though? It might be in absolute terms, but Google has said malware off Play is 50x higher, and clearly Google does a huge amount of work to keep scams off Play. It seems logical to have a multi-faceted approach and try to reduce malware distribution elsewhere.
When I search for ChatGPT right now on the Play Store, the first result on my phone is a counterfeit app with a fake logo, I don't think even basic diligence has been done on the play store, it's the far west.
As for the apk, of course not many people distribute legitimately this way ... because it's already too complicated! Even Fortnite couldn't make it work, so if they cannot, how can your average developer do it?
If you want more legitimate apks, the solution is to remove friction and make them easier to install.
Google has been acting in two steps here:
- first make apks too complicated for legitimate developers
- then claim that no legitimate developer use them...
It's fair to question whether the play store is the number one source of scams, but you should also question whether google actually does enough to keep scams off of Play, or is that just a pretense.
If I search for "DeepL" the first hit on the play store is "Preply" whatever that is, only the second one is actually DeepL.
Is Preply a scam, or an ad? You can dislike advertising, but ads aren't scams themselves.
I don't really understand your argument here, isn't Google's announcement also entirely one sided? I also don't see any "discussion" of disadvantages of their solution in their announcements. For example, the "over 50 times more malware" stat is stated without any source at all, same with "Most of your users’ download experience will not change at all" (inb4 I don't care about power users at all). Not to mention stats about scam-by-sideloaded app, anything that would suggest that the proposed solution is going to work.
The point of "keepandroidopen.org", in my understanding, is to be a quick PSA on why the author of the website thinks this is a problem with some call-to-action. It's not supposed to be a place for discussion, it's at best a discussion starter, one of the sides of the discussion to consider. Obviously they present their side, as Google has presented their side.
And anyway, how are users supposed to hold this "reasonable discussion" with a corporation? I know that Google had some sort a feedback form about this, and that they made some changes, but that is not a discussion. I didn't really actually see any "reasonable discussion" being held on this topic ever, anywhere, ever, nor do I really see how it would happen. I don't even really see a good reason for Google to hold such a discussion. It's a decision made by a corporation, about their product, after all.
Could you present your how you see this "reasonable discussion" being had? Where? How?
I agree, and this is the problem with lobbying: everyone has an agenda.
IMHO, this is not a problem: it is possible to disable the check (though it takes some clicks and 24h), and those who care should actually lobby for alternative OSes like GrapheneOS and LineageOS.
My biggest problem is that when I run LineageOS, at least on the phones I tried, it is signed with the Google test keys and the bootloader is not relocked. At the very least, it should be mandatory for manufacturers to allow running an alternative OS with proper secure boot, and it should be illegal for companies to ban OSes that are not signed by Google (through Play Integrity).
I agree. I don't like the idea of Android being locked down, but the conversations around this topic are tipping into disingenuous.
Your phone is still yours, you can still install third party apps, and you can still develop apps without a verification. But now there's a one-off hurdle to install them.
Not ideal, but when we think of the people that it's trying to protect, this feels like a reasonable middle ground.
Exactly. Nuance and good faith is in desperate need here. Google hasn't been perfect here by any stretch, but they are clearly responding to feedback. This side however seems to stick its head in the sand over security, "I wouldn't fall for it therefore it's not a problem" sort of stance, which is just talking cross-purposes. By all means push back on security being a concern, but the numbers don't support this.
You mention nuance and good faith, but on your profile, and on your website, you claim to work on Android at Google. Previously on Google Play. I don't see that mentioned in your comments about this issue, I do think it matters a lot.
> This side however seems to stick its head in the sand over security, "I wouldn't fall for it therefore it's not a problem"
Which is also a total misrepresentation of the arguments made on the website, and made by many people opposing these changes. Again, since you mention good faith and nuance.
> By all means push back on security being a concern,
The website does not seem to push back on security being a concern in general, if I'm reading it right. It does however push back on the idea that changes made by Google will actually increase security of the users.
> but the numbers don't support this.
Can I see these numbers? I would seriously love to.
There is a negative network effect: The opt-out is so complex and time-consuming that it will deter almost all users (even if some on HN say they will do it).
With so few users, many fewer developers will release apps that don't comply with Google's requirements. Then the value of opting out will decline significantly, which will reduce the number of people doing it, which will reduce the number of apps released ...
How do corporate users distribute custom apps on iPhones? Must they distribute them via Apple's store or is there some corporate mode, maybe involving X.509 certs and device management, that enables large-scale professional users to sideload?
ZERO. ZERO developers who don’t comply will make a living selling applications and services to the general public.
This is correct. The people who will refuse to pay $25 and sign their stuff are people with a political objective, not businesses.
It's not about paying Google. People can buy gift cards with cash and do that; that's not the problem, especially not for commercial use. It's everything else that they're imposing or could impose on a whim and whose device it is they're putting restrictions on.
Google will not accept prepaid cards for verification.
Google's identity requirements serve basic security needs and are fine.
> Google will not accept prepaid cards for verification.
Precisely?
Maybe to spell it out once more, that it's about the other restrictions and not the 25$. Identity requirements is one of those others.
> identity requirements serve basic security needs
Last I heard, Google doesn't employ law enforcement. I can auth to the people we vote for and any laws they make such as bank KYC against specific criminal activity. Nobody gets scammed via an apk when it's infinitely easier to put up a webpage or socialmedia profile
I agree; I expect that's already true?
In the GP I'm talking about people releasing FOSS and similar projects.
[dead]
Jokes on them, I have an iPhone. My phone was never truly mine.
You know, I'm fine with this (just as long as the opt-in is one-time, not for every install). A device maker needs to balance the interests of many different groups, including nontechnical users subject to scams, and it's pretty self-centered to get self-righteously outraged when things get a little harder for power users, when those changes may save the butt of a lot of other people.
The only thing that gives me pause is this:
> Worse: this flow runs entirely through Google Play Services, not the Android OS. Google can change it, tighten it, or kill it at any time, with no OS update required and no consent needed. And as of today, it hasn't shipped in any beta, preview, or canary build. It exists only as a blog post and some mockups.
I find it quite interesting that peoples talking on a website called "hacker news" find it fine that a company selling you an OS make it harder for you to install app not approved by them, notably so when there is enough scare screens as of now to discourage any too gullible peoples to do so.
What would we think if Microsoft decided all of a sudden to do something similar with Windows? How there is no outrage about this in that community?
Like the boiled crab in the chef's cuisine, we slowly accept the rising temperature around us as totally fine and normal.
Somewhat relevant article about the demise of a culture: https://aeon.co/essays/how-yuppies-hacked-the-original-hacke...
> I find it quite interesting that peoples talking on a website called "hacker news" find it fine that a company selling you an OS make it harder for you to install app not approved by them
I'm trying to get outside the myopic software engineer/geek mindset.
> notably so when there is enough scare screens as of now to discourage any too gullible peoples to do so.
Apparently the existing screens are not sufficient, and I buy that. I think the cooling down period is a good idea, because otherwise many people will just do as they're told because they don't understand what they're doing and are too trusting.
> What would we think if Microsoft decided all of a sudden to do something similar with Windows? How there is no outrage about this in that community?
Where is the outrage about nontechnical people getting misled and scammed?
So wait, does this mean that Google will forcefully uninstall the apps I currently have installed?! or disable? will the apps work again once I went through the 24h process?
Their FAQ states that previously installed unverified apps won't be able to install updates which suggests to me that they won't disable or uninstall them. Hopefully someone can confirm.
https://developer.android.com/developer-verification/guides/...
auto uninstall.
Is that actually confirmed anywhere? It certainly sounds possible given some of the wording ("At this point, any app installed on a certified device in these regions must be registered by a verified developer.") but it would be nice to get official confirmation.
This keeps coming up and I just want to point out that it's the result of one judge using the book rather than their brain to make a ruling.
Google asked (the appeals judge) why Apple was not a monopoly with the App store. The judge told Google it was because they cannot be anti-competitive if they have no competitors.
Well, here we are.
On my Android phone's home screen I have 23 apps, 11 of them are my own. If Android prevents me from installing my own apps I will switch to something else.
Unless you move to a linux phone (good luck finding one or daily driving it) your phone options are iPhone.
iOS restricts you to install only up to 3 personally signed apps which need to be resigned every 7 days only if you're in the same network of the computer that signs them. Or you live in europe and you can jump through much worse hoops to install AltStores which also break as soon as you travel outside of europe.
I daily drive Librem 5, and it's been fine.
Tell us more about your 11 apps!
- calendar
- spending tracking app
- notepad
- RSS reader just for my YouTube subscriptions
- dumbed down browser that can only show YouTube video and nothing else (no suggestions, no comments)
- space sim game
- RC boat remote control
- micro photo led ring Bluetooth control app
- magnetometer control app
- RSS reader for news
- browser
That's cool. What made you develop a custom browser, notepad, calendar etc?
Probably a NIH syndrome. Once you know how to make apps it's easy, notepad took me maybe 20 minutes.
This is a wild misrepresentation of the situation. Saying there is no opt-out is just false, they even provide the information on how users can opt-out. The "mandatory 24 hour cooling-off period" is also misleading, it's easy to bypass the cooling-off period with ADB.
> Saying there is no opt-out is just false
I can't see where one can opt-out of this new behavior and into the existing behavior, only a description of the new behavior's bypass (which is not the same thing at all)
> easy to bypass the cooling-off period with ADB
I don't think this is a reasonable use of the term "easy". I should be able to give my non-technical friend an apk and they can use it right then, with the one "are you very sure" screen.
> . I should be able to give my non-technical friend an apk and they can use it right then
Unfortunately that is the same vector that scammers use to drain people's bank accounts
Such is the cost of computing freedom. This line of thinking is analogous to surveillance justifications in meatspace.
The concepts don't need to be at odds with each other.
But also, I don't think that "computing freedom" means you get to use other people's computers without consent. Let's be clear here: Google's requirement for ID only applies to apps distributed from their computer. Presuming that you do actually respect computing freedom, I'd guess you'd support them in this.
I think a good compromise is that they could permit you to sideload. Which they are doing.
But also, if you are very concerned about computing freedom you can also vote with your wallet when you purchase a device.
> But also, I don't think that "computing freedom" means you get to use other people's computers without consent.
Who said anything like that? This is about being able to install software on your own device.
> I don't think that "computing freedom" means you get to use other people's computers without consent
Consent from whom? Consent is already required, why are you discussing this as though consent is not required? Why are you stating it as if people are using other's computers without consent? Right now when I sideload an APK on _my device_, I have to explicitly consent to allowing it to install. And I do not require the author of that APK to have made any deals/interactions with Google. What you mean is Google's consent or a debugger's consent or my consent tomorrow.
So I, as the user, will no longer be able to provide consent alone. I wish that you were right and it was just "no running without consent", but that is today's behavior, and that is being altered.
> I think a good compromise is that they could permit you to sideload. Which they are doing.
They always have, and that was a good compromise. They've now decided you can't sideload until tomorrow unless you break out debugging tools or require the author make special deals with a specific vendor. What exists today is a good compromise, the change is not.
I expect the same from my desktop and mobile devices here.
You mentioned surveillance -- I presumed you were talking about the ID requirement. This only applies if you're using Google's computers to push out your app.
If you sideload... what "surveillance" are you talking about?
> They've now decided you can't sideload until tomorrow
A single 24 hour waiting period, only the first time. Or just use ADB. The point is to prevent false-urgency scams. Honestly even this seems to me to be pretty weak.
Can you think of a single better option that has any efficacy at all?
If they're not surveilling what apps are being sideloaded, why is the bypass managed by google play services? There are at least 2 better options: - An option to not install the update which would fuck with my device - An option to use the OS layer instead of google play services for this fuckery. i disable gplay services the moment I get my hands on a new phone.
Because they're syncing the override flag to your next device so you don't have to do the waiting window ever again after the first time
>Unfortunately that is the same vector that scammers use to drain people's bank accounts
Is the solution really that no one can use a computer without special permission and inspection of government issued identification? If we wouldn't tolerate this with our desktop/laptop OS, why is it suddenly okay for our mobile computing platforms?
If Microsoft required this to run software in Windows, there would be riots.
> Is the solution really that no one can use a computer without special permission and inspection of government issued identification?
No, that is neither the only solution nor is it the one proposed here by Google.
Only physical practicalities will prevent this thinking be applied throughoutly: we can't have guardians preventing people from being scammed face to face. But having to identify yourself on a desktop computer and only be allowed to install software vetted by Microsoft and bunch of governments is readily on the books for the kind of thinking that makes these suggestions.
That's where it inevitably leads to. If people can't be allowed to be responsible for X, next they can't be allowed to be responsible for Y, then Z -- all for their own sake. Google taking some mythical "responsibility" on behalf of their users means the users are left powerless and that is that something Google wants more than just being a "good guy" who protects people from conmen.
It's not like people simply couldn't just limit themselves to installing apps from Google Play already, without these "guardrails". Android currently does make it clear that installing unknown apks from an external source is risky and shouldn't be done unless you really, really know what you're doing. No further technical solutions are required for the problem. You can't fix stupidity with technical means.
If someone is dumb enough to ignore a very explicit warning message, that's their problem. We also don't restrict the sales of kitchen knives just because some people inevitably are going to be dumb enough to hurt themselves with a knife. If they hurt themselves that's their problem, not the problem of more intelligent people.
I will say, an underrated use case for even small, local LLMs is making command line tools drastically more accessible to laypeople
I now know zero people I don't think should use linux, and people I know seems to run quite a gamut of technical know-how compared to most other technical folks I know
Having an LLM directly and autonomously drive command line tools outside of a strict sandbox sounds like a ticking time bomb.
Thinking tokens: "The files I'm trying to read are missing, I need to figure out why. I see the problem, I accidentally ran rm -rf /home/user. Let me run git restore. No that didn't work. Let me try git reset --hard origin/HEAD. That still didn't work. I should inform the user."
Output: "I was unable to complete the task you requested. Restore /home/user and I will try again"
I tend to set people up with a chat interface, which is pretty good for asking for commands or scripts that the user will then copy into their terminal. Most people I've gotten to try linux do pretty well with just a wiki, but once they run into something they want to do that's kind of idiosyncratic they tend to ask me for help. While I think running models that have access to a shell is dangerous and should be handled carefully, the fact that they've been trained for this use case generally means they're pretty good at shell commands and can give you one a decent chunk of the time. I'm never willing to inject an external dependency controlled by a company into people's computing needs unless they specifically ask for it, so this is usually a lightweight local model specialized in tool use, but not given shell access. This isn't much different from how they'd use search engine for this purpose these days, but if running locally, it can be more fault-tolerant to issues that affect their internet access as well as offering better privacy guarantees, albeit obviously a little less capable
ADB is not the only option. Do the 24hs wait then the experience will not be much different than what already happens today: https://imgur.com/a/Z9hoYIh
Doing a 24h wait _is_ much different from what happens today. That's the whole point. If my two options to run an application of my choosing are to use ADB to flip a switch or to wait a day, that is ridiculous.
I am only slightly comforted by the fact that desktop computing had set (some) self-ownership precedence before the current restrictive computing hegemony took control, though even that is eroding.
Wait until you find out about games consoles
The way you give your non-technical friends an APK and they just install it is by you signing it.
I should not have to enter into a business relationship with google just to hand my non-technical friend an APK any more than I have to enter into a business relationship with the Linux Foundation to hand my friend an AppImage.
But I want to let someone MITM my non-technical friend and repalce my APK with malware.
And then having Google approve it, so hopefully your app does not do anything that Google does not like, such as block ads.
> I can't see where one can opt-out of this new behavior and into the existing behavior, only a description of the new behavior's bypass (which is not the same thing at all)
I don't understand this, the ability to bypass new behavior in settings menus is basically the defenition of a new feature having an opt-out. Can you elaborate?
And I kind of buy the intent behind the cooling-off period anyway. IIRC it's to prevent people from being pressured into installing apps by scammers that could then take their phones hostage
Yes. That attack is a very real attack. The attacker gets access to the victim's phone and sideloads additional apps that appear to be the victim's legitimate banking application. The victim logs into it and sees a fake balance (as the app is fake). Pressure and other social engineering tactics are invoked and the scammer walks away with all of the victim's money.
As if there are no scam apps on Google Play.
> Saying there is no opt-out is just false, they even provide the information on how users can opt-out.
The article states that you can't opt-out of the update, which AFAIK is correct.
You still need Developer's Options enabled and plenty of banking and other apps complain if you do that. Why do I need the Developer's option enabled to run an app I developed myself, to be used by myself? It's clear they're heading to a walled garden and this is just a step towards that.
[flagged]
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Yeah, saw that; rubbed me wrong. "If you disagree you are manufactured, a shill." This kind of condescension has never been very convincing. And I mostly agree with the petition.
[flagged]
[flagged]
This is certainly bad news, but at least an escape hatch exists (the "advanced flow") and it appears to be a one-time pain in the ass. If that changes, I hope GrapheneOS and friends[1] can get Google Pay or some alternative working so I can comfortably jump ship, as I rely pretty heavily on the ability to pay with my phone.
[1] https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
Russian here, a former Android and iPhone user. I had to switch to Graphene OS in full paranoid more due to our worsening situation regarding VPNs and phone searches.
After about a month of using Graphene OS, I'm not looking back – it's great. I'm not recommending it as a 100% solution for everyone, but it's definitely a very solid practical step towards keeping the phone yours:
1. Your phone will be able to operate as a basic phone (calls, SMS, web, photos / videos, location, Bluetooth, eSIM) without a Google account.
2. You will always be able to install an APK. This helps you install apps that are banned from Google Play Store in your country.
3. There's a duress PIN that lets you wipe the phone completely from any 'Enter PIN' screen. (I tried it, it's a bit messy, but it does wipe the phone and in the end you return to a blank Graphene OS installation – no need to reinstall.)
4. There's a setting that lets you disable any USB port functionality other than charging.
5. The permission system is amazing. If you are forced to install a state-mandated spy app (like the Max messenger in Russia), you can put it into a "permission jail" where the app assumes that it has access to the requested data but actually receives what you explicitly give it. For example, you can select individual photos and contacts to make available to the app – while the app will think that it has access to all contacts and photos. Bonus: the new Internet permission, which lets apps think that they are connected to the Internet while they are actually blocked from it.
6. You can have a separate profile for data and apps you don't want to expose. (There's also a Private Space for that, it's very convenient but it exposes installed apps via app search from the main space.)
7. There's an End Session function for a logged-in profile that stops it from running, wipes it from memory, and puts the data at rest.
8. You can have a separate VPN in each profile. This should help against situations where your local equivalent of Roskomnadzor sniffs out your VPN connection settings via state-mandated changes in apps operating in your jurisdiction, and bans that particular VPN later. Just make sure you install all spy apps under a profile with a disposable VPN that you aren't afraid to lose.
9. Each profile (and the Private Space too, because technically it is a special kind of Profile) can have a separate Google account. For example, one profile can have a Russian Google account (for banking and state apps), while another profile can have an Armeninan Google account (for things that are banned in Russia, like Spotify and Kindle.) However, to arrange this, you have to physically be in the desired country – Google doesn't let you change the account country without being there.
To sum up – if you are concerned about this situation, buy Pixel 10 (excellent hardware btw.), install Graphene OS (very easy, their web installer is great), and try using it for a while.
Very helpful and informative!
This is reason I don't use ios. I will be happy to use a new OS forked from android at this point of time. Any suggestions? I don't care where it originates from.
https://furilabs.com/
It runs a modified Debian and can run Android apps in containers. To my knowledge this is the closest we come to "open-source phone that actually works as a phone" today.
GrapheneOS, /e/OS, LineageOS
Ideally buy a phone with it pre-installed
Thank you for sharing this. It is sad that Google has by now destroyed every reason I wanted to run Android. Bye-bye.
> People chose Android because it was different.
Source?
The android/iOS market shares vary a lot by country, with android dominating worldwide. North America is an exception with iOS in front (I think even more so in Canada). Maybe people _in the US_ choose android because it's different?
In Germany for example the android market share vs iOS is something like 60:40. India, something like 90:10.
Reasonable explanation: there's many more different price and feature ranges with android. I doubt the average Indian or German would say they bought an android "because it's more open", especially if they're in the great majority of people who don't work in tech.
The fact that many Android bootloaders are not allowed to be unlocked by users means, by definition, these devices were never yours to begin with. It is not Google taking away your ability to use your sideloaded apps on your device because true, unlimited device freedom was never yours to begin with.
Hence my phone selection spreadsheet having a column for unlockability, making sure I don't forget to check it. I'm so used to root, I'd full-on buy the phone just assuming it's a thing when some vendors indeed block you
That this is now rolled out ecosystem-wide by the central controlling party is a significant change from some vendors being assholes
This feels like something where the EU Commission should step in. This is directly counter to the Digital Markets Act, it's Google abusing its gatekeeper position.
It's not because you can still install apps outside the Play Store. The EU commission buys these "safety" arguments (also worked for Apple, they don't care that you still can't install IPAs) and the DMA is made for businesses, not for end-users. I once wrote them about the Chrome Web Store monopoly but they insist that everything is fine because businesses aren't impacted. They are of course also interested in centralized censorship because they can order Google to block apps they don't like.
It feels like you can draw a pretty clear comparison to the Google Shopping case: https://www.stibbe.com/publications-and-insights/google-shop...
It's not enough to provide some crappier way for competition. Just using your dominance to influence the market at all is already monopoly abuse.
And of course, businesses are affected. App developers are frequently businesses.
Wouldn't they have fined Apple long ago, if what Google is doing here (a small step less bad than what Apple does) were illegal?
They replied to me they did not see any legal problem with notarization.
We need a DMA 2.0 which address the oligopoly of dominant Operating Systems, including the freedom to install alternative OSes (no more signed bootloaders, proper hardware documentation, etc...).
My position regarding devices is that only 2 out of 3 should be satisfied:
1. Used as a proof of identity (for banks, govt services, etc.)
2. Is distributed to laypeople who have more pressing concerns in their lives than security.
3. Is an open platform where you can download apps arbitrarily from the Internet that can read your data and exfiltrate them to a malicious actor.
The mainstream today chooses 1&2. Novelty, underpowered devices choose 2&3. Hobbyists have option 3 (and those who like to live dangerously 1&3) with some inconvenience. You can still run GrapheneOS... and the mainstream apps that expect your device to be a proof of your identity won't work... and I find that quite reasonable.
I take issue with the idea that openness and freedom to install arbitrary software cannot occur without strong safety mechanisms. Android/GrapheneOS/iOS have sandboxing and permissions systems that put most desktop OSes to shame. The base platform can control apps' access to every resource, and an app store can put its own caveats and reminders to users for what kind of access is needed for the functions of a given app.
Sandboxing and permissions provide a different type of security than application signatures. Sandboxing can limit app capabilities, but it doesn't change the fact that you can accidentally grant a malicious application permissions.
Application signatures and developer identification bring a different kind of application security. It provides the security of societal legal systems and legal ramifications for malicious actors.
In the end, you still have the choice to trust the "system" or your own judgment.
> but it doesn't change the fact that you can accidentally grant a malicious application permissions
Do you also support the nanny states that decide how you should be parenting your children? (The age verification etc.)
You have a consistent habit of posing complex questions in your rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question
Please don't do that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is not really a complex question as much as it is an analogy demonstrating that allowing third parties to dictate how you live leads to a huge loss of your freedom with bad consequences on your independence and control. But you are right: I could say this in my above comment.
It's a number of false choices. Google has complete control over Android and they could easily implement 1, 2, and 3 if they wanted. It's not as if they couldn't provide the means for certified secure enclave apps in addition to normal ones.
Can't even run F-Droid any more? That's the only source of apps I use.
You can if you jump through Google's dubious hoops to enable "advanced mode" as described here: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/android-de...
The steps are rather insulting and arbitrary, but at least there's some way out.
Some more discussions:
2 weeks ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47778274
February https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47139765
October https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45742488
I think it's time to visit an Apple Store and try out the Apple ecosystem. I haven't used an Apple device in a long time.
They are shiny. Many aspects feel more 'human', IMO.
If you use ad-blockers, I recommend exploring that use-case with Apple / Safari. It's doable though for me is a bit frustrating.
In fact, I urge creating a list of use-cases before heading out to the store, and cranking through those while at the store. Computers/phones are such a deeply entwined component of modern life it could be a long list.
Passwords, backups, bluetooth compatibility, connecting mass-storage devices to iPad / iPhone, etc.
Yes, but not because of those changes in the GMS stock OS, but because the ability to unlock the bootloader (and install the OS you can actually control) is being increasingly limited.
Stock GMS Android was never yours, you only had access to basic permissions, privileged/signature permissions were only accessible to Google/vendors anyway.
From my point of view I don't see anything wrong with knowing a little bit more about the person behind the app I'm trusting to do my personal compute on my personal device. Personally I always think twice when I download apps from company's whose names I don't recognize. Same with PCs... do you really want to run that *.exe you downloaded from that cool site you found?
Changes like this will help keep developers honest and accountable. Yeah yeah bad apples will still find ways to screw us.
If you want to publish an app to a global scale ecosystem, is it really too much to ask to give some ID?
This isn't the issue that's at stake here though: The question is:
> Who is making the decision which code is allowed to run on my device?
The status quo is already that can make this decision yourself. There are other people who make different decisions from you.
The proposed change is trying to take this decision away from you and making google the arbiter of which code is allowed to run.
The core of this issue is the opposite of "publishing an app to a global scale ecosystem" - I want to publish an app that is useful for me and a very small circle of people, that is what's being taken away.
> Same with PCs... do you really want to run that *.exe you downloaded from that cool site you found?
Yes, I am fully capable of making decisions about what software to run on my personal hardware on my own, thanks. I don't need Apple or Google or Microsoft to make this decision for me.
They're trying to fix social engineering. It's simply not possible.
It's the no way to op out from this that is bad.
Sounds like a classic astroturfer. Did you read tfa? Perhaps engage with some of those arguments already made on that page eg wrt ID.
It is going to sound odd, but.. why do we need a phone number at all ( I know why it is so entrenched -- I am asking about need )? Because, if phone number is not needed, we can move to bypass the annoying effective duopoly.
Phone numbers so far have been one of the most effective unique identifiers that companies can convince people to give them
It's incredible that on the same device we can write pithy little comments, we can also play games, listen to music, read countless books, basically access the whole of the internet, and also empty out bank accounts. I'd wager most of those can be done on many people's devices in under a minute, with little more safeguard than a fingerprint.
To me this isn't some security flaw in android that allows users to do something. It's a fundamental flaw in having most of the world's population forced into using a device whose software, firmware, and hardware are gate kept by a handful of monopolistic companies. They want all your eggs in one basket, and they'll hold the basket for you.
For many people these things mediate a person's interaction with the world. That's not some super fantastic responsibility on Google's shoulders, but a humanist catastrophe caused in part by (and of course handsomely profitable for) Google.
I don't get it. Just ten to twelve years ago we did just fine without mobile banking apps. Just go to the bank. I've been using graphene with no g shite for a year and have zero issue paying bills on my laptop. If my bank starts requiring two factor from an app to pay in a browser I'll switch banks or just cost them money by paying in person.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47937256 <-- This mean that apps that have already been installed prior to Sept 2026 may continue to work for a while but will stop getting updates.
Does the new 24-hour process mean the apps will need to be uninstalled and reinstalled? That would mean the user's existing data in the could be lost in the process.
GrapheneOS and PostmarketOS deserve more visibility
Also Mobian, PureOS, and many more: https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php?title=PinePhone_Software_R...
Will someone clarify my doubt ? The lineancy of allowing sideloading by means of developer options in settings that requires one time wait of 48hr. Will that be available to all android os or only newer. I was using android 10 on samsung model that already hit end of support by brand years ago. So it update is in developer options and its os level would'nt that require ota update but with end of support for system updates from samsung itself how it will be pushed
If an update could silently block any app from working then your phone was never yours to begin with. Even if they never implement the update, the potential power means they own your phone.
We lost control of our hardware a long long time ago.
I don't understand, there was all this regulation for force apple to allow alternative app stores, and now google are pulling this move?
How is this not the same walled garden approach apple was forced to change?
The regulation has blatant loopholes, as usual. While it did force Apple to allow third party app stores, all apps still have to go through a review process by Apple themselves before they can be installed from any source, and they retain the ability to block any apps they don't approve of. Google is just following in their footsteps.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/118110#notarization
Alternate app stores are still allowed. It's just that they are restricted to applications signed by developers who have paid a tithe to Google.
Google are obeying the letter of the law, while openly violating its spirit. Perhaps it'll be possible to attack them in court, but it will take years, and by that time they'll have found another trick.
this change makes Android more restricted than it was but still not as restricted as Apple. If anything I'd guess the EU vs Apple situation made Google more confident that they could get away with this change.
[flagged]
So what you're saying is that I have about 3 months to switch to Graphene? Really though, is this not the very definition of monopolistic behavior? Did they not just lose a lawsuit over this?
How could they, when Apple has been doing this for years? Same anti-anticompetition rules would have to be applied to them and then the indoctrinated fans (like up to ~30% of the population depending on where you live) will overthrow law and order
So much for vibe-coding apps for personal or niche use (e.g., club/sport/charity, etc.).
Or will Google carve out an exception for Gemini/Antigravity/CoLab/AI Studio/Whatever? At least a usable exception, but smells a lot like antitrust lock-in if you prefer Claude/ChatGPT/DeepSeek/Whatever.
> So much for vibe-coding apps for personal or niche use
You will still be able to do that...
The article has a whole page about how, while it is still technically possible, it is a massively messy, deliberately intimidating, 9-step process that takes 24 hours.
That looks to me like an entirely unusable and unacceptable situation if you want to just vibe-code up a little app to track your bike club rides or something.
The 15 minute cycle of: Looks good -» save-» install -» start debugging, oops, I've got to fix that -» repeat
Becomes a 25-hour cycle involving: Looks good -» save-» do five steps -» reboot -» wait 24 hours -» 3 more confirmation steps -» install -» start debugging, oops, I've got to fix that -» repeat
And then, now that you're determined and spend all week working through a few refinement cycles and have the app you want, you can just give it to everyone at the meetup, THEY all need to get it, do the nonsense, wait 24 hours, do more nonsense, and then finally your bike group can track their rides.
You seriously think that is acceptable?
Being able to technically do something is a very different thing than being able to practically do something.
> Becomes a 25-hour cycle involving
It's not a cycle. You do it once. One time you wait 24h, and that's it.
Yup, for your first version.
Now, you run it for a while, realize you need to make changes, make those changes and now have a v1.01 to use. Do you know it doesn't require a new install? It likely does, since you are not using the Google Play update mechanism.
And even if they do "allow" automatic updates of the same app without the delay, you really find this delay acceptable?
I'd be ok with a free self-certification of your own app, but forcing a 24hr delay, nope
This is way worse than "you're holding it wrong" — this is bad functionality by intentional design
I don't know what you are talking about. Did you read the article? It was communicated by Google too [1].
ONE TIME, you go to the developer settings, you do the confirmation dance (wait 24h and whatnot), and at the end you choose to "allow indefinitely".
Then you will be able to install unverified app... indefinitely. Indefinitely meaning forever, not "until the next install".
[1]: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/android-de...
> this flow runs entirely through Google Play Services, not the Android OS. Google can change it, tighten it, or kill it at any time, with no OS update required and no consent needed.
I am curious: Can you opt-out with the device not connected to the network?
From the statement in the article it seems that may not be possible?
> "Google is now rewriting that deal, retroactively"
Similar to how they dropped their "Don't be evil." motto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
Since Google is planning to apply this retroactively, people should be allowed to return their phones for a refund. Also, could someone use a warranty claim to ask them to replace with a device that does not have this issue?
Android's original openness did attract users, but the flood of poorly-made apps also created real fraud and crime risks. Those of us on HN have high security standards, but for older users, that old policy created genuine security vulnerabilities. Just observing my own family members.
But how does this help? I guess most of the apps used for fraud were installed through the play store anyway
That's not accurate. Most fraud apps targeting elderly users are distributed via APK links in phishing messages, not through Play Store. They impersonate banks, government apps, etc. The ability to sideload APKs is exactly what makes these attacks possible on Android but not on iOS.
Really good timing for Jolla to produce a new phone :)
I still have fond memories of my 2013 Jolla, and I'm hoping that the 2026 Jolla will be just as lovingly crafted. Most importantly, Jolla is a company that seems to care about me, the user, whereas Apple and Google constantly treat me like a peasant that needs to be governed.
I imagine most of us here will look elsewhere when we next upgrade. But are those numbers large enough to form a viable alternative?
Dont get me wrong: I'd love the linux phone "rebel" community to be as large as the android one. But... i doubt it will be anytime soon? The problem is getting the hw investment done first.
Android ecosystem is equivalent to windows one: its open enough to sustain a large number of vendors and tinkerers.
I doubt this scare-campaign (OP link) will drive people constructively towards (effectively) innexistent linux alternatives. It's more likely to do nothing or push people towards iOS
I've been a happy user of several of those "effectively inexistent" devices for nearly two decades now and I'm typing this on one of them. Whether they "exist" for you or not is your choice.
I'm doubtful, I for a bit bought a lot of the Pine64 devices thinking about this eg. not just Android/iOS... but the lack of feature parity eg. missing drivers, lack of apps, old hardware.
Unless people are paid to do it vs. volunteer
That's the depressing part. I keep looking for something I could potential run the likes of kde mobile and maybe waydroid on, but there's really just nobody doing this. You are basically locked into a vendor kernel if it's even available.
People forget how much the mobile hardware industry relies on non-free infrastructure. Infrastructure developed by companies that make the standards. You really can't make a good open-source phone because you, pretty much, have to play by the rules of the companies in these consortiums.
Except Librem 5 has been created and is usable by the HN people.
Does the Librem 5 not rely on any non-free code or infrastructure?
It does. They obscure the usage of non-free hardware/firmware by not shipping it as part of the OS, but as a bundle on separate flash storage that is loaded into the OS by initrd. That blob is updatable as "firmware". The 100% free open-source is just marketing. It's just for the OS. A lot of the hardware and firmware is proprietary.
https://github.com/linuxboot/heads/blob/c859c28b88b7bc197c16...
https://forums.puri.sm/t/the-librem-5-blob-list/28815/26
> The 100% free open-source is just marketing.
100% FLOSS is in the OS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504641. It is not the end of the road, but this is the only phone that can run such OS.
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943487
It's basically taking the blobs that would be normally shipped with the OS in a sensible manner, shuffle it around, then calling it "free" while the same blobs would still be there, just on different flash storage chips.
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943487
You keep repeating this everywhere. Consider reading what a Librem 5 developer says instead, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943487
Because it's true, and I know what he said, I am not confused at all. Did you not read anything at all?
On the Librem laptop, the tampering is done by PureBoot and inject into /run/firmware. The other user was linking the stuff with the laptop.
*On a Librem 5, it is stored on a separate chip, then they read it with the initramfs, then mount it on top of the regular filesystem at /lib/firmware*.
Like I said, it's just shuffling stuff around.
Here is the actual code, if you care enough to read it: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/librem5-fw-jail/-/blob/pureos...
If you can't read code, here is the marketing material: https://puri.sm/posts/shipping-new-sparklan-wifi-cards-with-...
If you don't know that the firmware for components/peripherals can either be uploaded to them by Linux or just stored on some flash chip on the component, read: https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-library/refer...
For the record, the "jail" only exists so PureOS (or any other distro) does not have to distribute any blobs within its repositories or include them in their images - though distros still can if they choose to, like postmarketOS does for example. There's very little difference between a firmware blob that's stored in a peripheral's internal flash, NOR flash or OS rootfs when it comes to user freedom, in the end it gets executed the same way on the same hardware. Having a separate place for these blobs only simplifies their management and allows to put a clear distinction of what's free and what's not. The important thing is that, regardless of whether the "jail" is used or not, there's not a single blob that runs on the user's CPU within the user's system on the Librem 5, which isn't a unique property for a phone but rare nevertheless; the peripherals are a different thing and Purism has never claimed that there are no blobs there (in fact, the existence of e.g. the DDRC blob was being highlighted already in very early development).
(also, the NOR flash itself already had to be there because that's what TPS65982 boots from, so the "jail" is just using the 4MB storage that would otherwise remain mostly empty)
I'm tired of arguing with you. I see no effort from your side to come to some understanding or to clarify anything. Here's why.
> On the Librem laptop, the tampering is done by PureBoot
What do you mean by "tampering" here? Is uploading firmware to peripherals a "tampering"? Why is this a problem, compared with other devices? Does anybof those blobs run on the CPU? I don't understand what you are trying to say.
> If you don't know that the firmware for components/peripherals can either be
I do know. How is this relevant? I never denied that the device does have some proprietary blobs.
> I see no effort from your side to come to some understanding or to clarify anything.
Accusing me of your own sins.
> What do you mean by "tampering" here? Is uploading firmware to peripherals a "tampering"? Why is this a problem, compared with other devices? Does anybof those blobs run on the CPU? I don't understand what you are trying to say.
On the laptop, messing with the system memory (/run) and dumping firmware packages in there instead of just shipping it with the OS using a sensible approach like the linux-firmware package is a hack-job and nasty practice. And since it's messing with system memory, that's your "tampering" right there.
On the phone, once again, instead of using a normal, sensible approach like the linux-firmware package on desktop Linux or the vendor partition on Android, they just store the firmware in some chip, then have the OS (or more accurately, the initramfs) mount the content of the chip using overlayfs in /lib/firmware anyways. It's another implementation of the same hackjob. That, and they combine it with using peripherals whose firmware are stored inside of internal flash chips so the OS doesn't have to be shipped with firmware packages that it then needs to load into the peripherals.
What does this entire exercise do for freedom or openness? *Asbolutely nothing*. It's called shuffling the firmware storage around so you can market the OS as "blob free" when it's literally meaningless. If anything, it makes it harder to audit and figure out which firmware version is being run than if the firmware were to be shipped along with the OS.
---
To dumb it down a notch if you really do not understand what I am trying to say:
This makes about as much sense as if I were to take the SSD out of my laptop, destroy the M.2 socket, then advertise it as a "storage free and OS free laptop". To use the laptop, you must plug in external storage through the USB port and load up an OS. But hey, since there is no SSD or OS on the "main" part of the laptop, I am now qualified for some made up certification and can advertise my stuff as "freeing" the user from the shackles of the evil storage system and nastiness of having an OS. Definitely more "open" than other laptops.
A bit aggressive, but understandable.
> If anything, it makes it harder to audit and figure out which firmware version is being run than if the firmware were to be shipped along with the OS.
Yep. https://docs.puri.sm/Hardware/Librem_5/Maintenance/Modem.htm...
"These files are controlled by a third-party and are not publicly accessible. Contact Purism Support to request these files for a firmware update"
---
Don't bother arguing with fsflover. They're a Purism evangelist that refuses to view things objectively.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1777075200&dateRange=custom&...
https://hn-wrapped.kadoa.com/fsflover
---
Damn. They even argued with marcan (Hector Martin known for Asahi Linux) in 2022. At this point I'm guessing they're a bot.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841267
---
For fsflover, what Purism is doing is moving the non-auditable part of the OS onto a separate storage device so that they can claim that the OS is "Fully Auditable" and FSF certified even though the non-auditable and non-free part is mounted into the OS filesystem during boot. It's deceptive marketing and you're spreading that marketing.
Other open mobile OSes aren't trying to hide the fact that there needs to be proprietary components for hardware.
The only thing I concede is that the drivers are FOSS, which is why some performance and functionality is degraded compared to phones using non-free drivers. You could develop an AOSP phone using the same FOSS drivers as well, you'll just have the same issues.
> what Purism is doing is moving the non-auditable part of the OS onto a separate storage device so that they can claim that the OS is "Fully Auditable" and FSF certified even though the non-auditable and non-free part is mounted into the OS filesystem during boot.
Yup, that's part of it.
But remember, even if they didn't do it, there's still a matter of them by using components with internal flash storage for the firmware instead of shipping firmware with the OS and letting the OS upload them. Like that's not a hackjob like the /lib/firmware or /run/firmware stuff or anything, but it's not like it's any more "open" than any other system, if not being a bit more opague. Of course the marketing would still be deceptive then.
Depends where you draw the line. There is not a single non-free blob in the OS that runs there once the bootloader is up (unless you put some there by yourself, which you're of course free to do).
I think you misunderstand what the Purism Firmware Jail is. I don't blame you though. They seem to make it purposefully misleading. It doesn't isolate what runs in the OS. It just isolates the OS updates from the non-free blob updates. The OS still runs the non-free blobs. It just loads it from separate flash.
https://github.com/linuxboot/heads/blob/c859c28b88b7bc197c16...
https://forums.puri.sm/t/the-librem-5-blob-list/28815/26
It is you who is confused here. The first link is completely irrelevant to the Librem 5, and the second one points to a thread where the actual information present has been written by me.
The only non-free piece of code executed by the ARM Cortex-A53 cluster on the Librem 5 is the SoC's mask ROM bootloader. Once the control is passed to u-boot/ATF there is not a single non-free blob that runs there. Some peripherals may need blobs to be uploaded onto them to work, such as DP, DDRC and one of the used Wi-Fi cards (handled by ROM/u-boot/Linux respectively), while others boot from their own internal memories. Not all of those firmwares are non-free, but most are.
In the end, as I said earlier, the assessment depends on where you draw the line. I happen to draw it at the main CPU and the blobs that need to run within the user-controlled OS, which are unacceptable for me and which aren't present on the Librem 5.
Ah. I see. So the blobs are loaded into the separate microprocessors. Either way, it's the same as pretty much any modern phone, where the modem (and other secondary processors) are running some proprietary firmware and is communicating with the OS processor.
I don't see how it's different from running a free open-source ASOP OS. On the mainstream Android devices, the wireless hardware is also isolated and communication is done via IOMMU.
There's some debate as to whether using the USB stack for communication to the modem in the Librem 5 is less secure than IOMMU as well.
Pretty much any modern phone is also full of blobs that run on the main CPU to ensure basic functionality, with only a handful of exceptions. Just consider how many features stop working or get severely degraded on various phones when you use a clean AOSP build on them (provided that you can do it at all in the first place). Android's driver infrastructure effectively encourages non-free blobs in "vendor" partitions, and many things are purposely moved from the GPLv2 kernel to the userspace so they don't have to be copylefted. If you want to run a non-Android OS on these devices you either have to fill the gaps yourself or use these blobs through compatibility layers.
> at that point you still are trusting external communication to those devices with their proprietary blobs
Just as you do with any kind of peripheral, whether it implements what it's doing purely in hardware or with an embedded microcontroller.
> There's some debate as to whether the USB stack for communication to the modem is less secure than IOMMU as well.
You can have "some debate" on absolutely anything, but that doesn't yet mean it makes any sense. You have communication protocols on top of IOMMUs as well which are subject to exactly the same security considerations as potential exploits in the USB stack, so whatever debate you're referring to is unlikely to be held in good faith. I wonder why you mention it unprompted, as it's fairly off-topic here.
> Just consider how many features stop working or get severely degraded on various phones when you use a clean AOSP build on them.
That's mainly because of device trees. The firmware also isn't distributed via separate flash storage on the device, but I don't consider that making a difference. It's still proprietary firmware running on proprietary hardware. On Qualcomm-based Pixel devices, cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth, and GNSS are all isolated and sandboxed.
> It's also interesting that you mention it unprompted, as it's fairly off-topic here
A primary reason people complain about proprietary blobs is security. People claim that the Librem 5 is more open and secure, but it still uses the same proprietary modules as a Pixel running GrapheneOS. Does Librem 5 have signature checks for the firmware and a tamper-proof bootloader to load the firmware and OS, or can someone sell you a compromised Librem 5?
Is it more free, open, and secure than a Pixel running Android? Because, the only difference I'm seeing is how the firmware is stored and Google Play Services. And with GrapheneOS, only how the firmware is stored. Everything else points to a more insecure system with Librem 5.
> That's mainly because of device trees.
Huh? The device tree is the one thing trivially recoverable from the blob. I'm talking about drivers, the same kind as when you install, let's say, the non-free Nvidia driver on a PC. They run as part of the OS and handle various stuff, most commonly comms like VoLTE/VoWiFi, but often also camera ISPs, GPUs, fingerprint readers etc.
> are all isolated and sandboxed
So isolated that you can break them by repartitioning your eMMC/UFS.
> A primary reason people complain about proprietary blobs is security.
The primary reason I care about blobs is freedom and practical aspects that come out of it. Dealing with blobs is always a PITA and severely limits what you can do with the hardware. The peripherals would be nice to have freed, but it's the main CPU and storage that is supposed to be my (the user's) domain and only mine. My Librem 5 came with a GNU/Linux distro on it, but if I wanted to port, say, FreeBSD to it there's all I need to be able to it. I can't do that with an AOSP device fed with blobs from the "vendor" image, at least not without spending years on reverse engineering.
The Librem 5 is one of the handful phones out there that make it this easy. It is also the only one I'm aware about that's still being sold where you have the hardware ECAD and MCAD designs available - and not just to look at, but published on a free license. I think it has earned its bragging rights when it comes to freedom and openness.
> can someone sell you a compromised Librem 5?
Of course, just like any other PC. You want to reflash it before use, obviously.
The SoC supports High Assurance Boot, you can burn your key into its efuses and have it only ever accept software that's cryptographically signed by you.
I see. So it is better in the sense that the drivers are open-source. Though the drivers in Android/GrapheneOS are not open-source, I believe the drivers are also isolated from full kernel-level access.
But it still brings the point that you can't make a phone without proprietary chips and firmware from the mobile industry giants.
> You want to reflash it before use, obviously.
I think that is non-obvious to the majority of users buying a phone.
> The SoC supports High Assurance Boot, you can burn your key into its efuses and have it only ever accept software that's cryptographically signed by you.
An important consideration for consumers is that their data is secure if they lose their phone. Without a secure boot process by default, that's a hard sell for the common masses.
The real question is whether it affects me as a user. The RF spectrum used by cellular networks is highly regulated, so I wouldn't be able to use it freely either way. The PC keyboard I type on right now most likely has some kind of microcontroller running some code in it, but it's of little consequence to me whether it's free or not. I do care about what runs on *my* system though, as that has tangible implications, and I care about it the same way whether it's my laptop or my phone.
> that is non-obvious to the majority of users
Yes, and the consequences of that can be seen in TFA - locking things down due to ill-defined security concerns. Why not go a bit further - the most secure device is the one you can't use to do anything at all.
On a side note, app attestation is already unironically getting us there - you have to either accept that you have no control over "your" device or not be able to use it to interface with the world. For me, any platform that allows applications to attest the environment they run in is insecure by design, as it can be exploited against me.
> An important consideration for consumers is that their data is secure if they lose their phone
Well, it's a good thing that PureOS is LUKS-encrypted by default then. It even has a smartcard reader, so key storage can be decoupled from the phone's hardware.
> Why not go a bit further - the most secure device is the one you can't use to do anything at all.
That's not far off a reasonable criticism of Purism's security model, that a device so wholly compromised it requires one to activate all physical kill switches to disable the hardware in order to so much as safely enter one's device PIN (per Purism's own site content), that it's no longer useful.
Everyone has to make their own trade-offs, but for me that's a model so questionable that its utility value rapidly approaches zero.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're either misunderstanding something or something really needs to be changed in the docs.
Citing an article [0], a post[1] on the site states, "Security researchers over the years have discovered ways to detect what you are typing on the screen simply by looking at variations in the accelerometer." (Infomercial-esque strikethrough not retained here.)
Purism's solution, apparently, is hardware switches. As I understand it, the accelerometer isn't disabled via hardware switches unless all hardware switches are disabled, as there is no discrete accelerometer switch: "To trigger Lockdown Mode, just switch all three kill switches off. When in Lockdown Mode, in addition to powering off the cameras, microphone, WiFi, Bluetooth and cellular baseband we also cut power to GNSS, IMU, and ambient light and proximity sensors."[1]
[0] https://phys.org/news/2013-10-accelerometer-tracking-potenti...
[1] https://puri.sm/posts/lockdown-mode-on-the-librem-5-beyond-h...
I'll try my best to take this seriously.
I don't care much about hardware kill switches myself - but many people clearly do. I've seen it when I was involved in the Neo900 project, I've seen it in discussions about the Librem 5 and PinePhone, I've seen it in reactions when Purism has released a tablet that lacked them. I guess it's because, unlike software, they're easy to understand and easy to trust. Most people don't understand or particularly trust software, for various reasons. Even with Android's security model, I don't think a regular user trusts that Google Play Services that run on their phone always do what they told them to, so they often long for something tangible that would give them a peace of mind. Hardware switches do that.
There's a matter of the modem being a whole separate device that's not really under the user control too. The only way to be sure that it's actually off is to not give it access to power. You can trust your OS, but the modem could still do its own thing regardless of what you asked it to, so I can get that too.
> The Purism model increasingly looks fatally flawed for anyone who doesn't have a very particular and narrowly defined threat model: one who trusts all software they run from the kernel to their applications completely, trusts their hardware completely, yet for [reasons] somehow fully mistrusts the sum total of the device at very specific, limited, and irregular intervals.
The Librem 5 is a general purpose computer that you can run whatever you want to on. I have no reason to distrust the GNU/Linux distribution that runs on it, but I could very well run Android, perhaps even with Play Services, on it if I had to for some reason, just like I used to boot into Windows on my PC many years ago. If I wanted to make sure that it won't access the radios or sensors while I do so, the switches would indeed not just be helpful, but effectively effortless.
The "lockdown mode" in particular is an answer to a UX issue. People want to have switches for various things, but if you just gave them all they ask for you'd end up with nothing but tons of switches around the screen. I believe the main motivation for the lockdown mode was squeezing the control over GNSS in when it was decided to use at most three switches, and the sensors then followed as adding them there could be done almost for free. You could do the thing PinePhone did, with plenty of tiny inaccessible switches behind its back cover; Purism opted for a limited amount of easily accessible switches, and I'm actually glad they did (it happened long before I got involved), because...
> Per Purism, it's perfectly usable in the same way any Linux slab with no radios or sensors of any kind is perfectly usable, yes, but that's stretching things in practical terms for a phone, and it's all very divorced from the reality of what most people expect from their phones.
I said that I personally don't care about the switches, but I also have to say that I surprised myself and ended up using them quite a lot. Not the mic/cam one, this one stays basically unused, but I'm using the cellular and Wi-Fi ones regularly - they're just super convenient. Whenever I want to save power or not be bothered by anything, I toggle the switches. If I had to unlock the phone and swipe through some menus, I probably wouldn't bother most of the time, but I don't have to, so I do. I used to be completely indifferent to these switches, but they ended up being really nice to have when I actually started using the phone. Let's not pretend that having an airplane mode option on a phone makes it a "slab with no radios", there are contexts where you do want to disable some things and continue to use the others.
> Still, it's entertaining. The marketing, the switches, the sweeping technical proclamations and bold self-assessments of high corporate ethics.
I don't see anything wrong in Purism providing what people have often requested. This is not exactly a kind of device that will just market itself, the more niches it can serve and differentiators it can tuck in without diminishing other aspects of the device the easier it will be to sell. I don't think the Librem 5 project would be economically viable if it only ever targeted people interested in Linux. Kill switches, modularity, smart card reader, replaceable battery, separate GNSS module, audio jack etc. are all attempts to extend its appeal and serve a yet another niche, as a device like this would never be able to compete on thinness or specs with what's offered mainstream. It makes perfect sense to me. Some of these things I enjoy, some I don't care about, but none bothers me.
> Beyond all that, installing packages from Debian stable on a mobile phone is a very enjoyable thing. I'm a former N900 and PinePhone user who's not opposed to making reasonable compromises for significant upsides, and would love a truly viable and fully open Linux phone that can run a variety of distros, but I remain unconvinced that the Librem 5 is that device.
I'm a former Neo Freerunner and N900 user, and a current Librem 5 user (with a PinePhone around too, but I already had a Librem 5 when I got it so I barely ever used it). Installing Debian packages is the only way I know how to use a smartphone. Well, okay, I used opkg in the past too :) I got involved in the project because it was clear to me that this was the device worthy of being the successor of my N900 and I'm happy with it and proud of what we, both Purism and the wider community, managed to achieve with it. In fact, I'm starting to get worried about it aging with no viable successor in sight. It's still fine today, but the arrow of time only points one way.
>> An important consideration for consumers is that their data is secure if they lose their phone
> Well, it's a good thing that PureOS is LUKS-encrypted by default then.
My bad, I meant leave their phone unattended. Wherein someone can compromise the device from boot, so that when unlocked, the device is fully compromised.
You don't have to lock things down to solve that either - see the measured boot process with Librem Key for an example.
(that said, this is a completely different threat vector that I doubt the common masses actually care about; and if I really had to choose between openness and evil-maid resistance, I'd choose the former)
I think the common masses just expect it in the first place. If you told someone that leaving their phone unattended could lead them to getting their data stolen, they would probably be surprised. I know this isn't a surprise to the HN crowd, but it is for regular people.
I would also guess that the common masses would choose the opposite as shown by them choosing convenience over openness. It's convenient to not have a separate key to prevent evil-maid attacks.
To be frank, I'm tired of this security theater. Yes, let's lock things down to prevent evil-maid attacks and bring in the technological dystopia in the process, who cares that the same evil maid could put your finger onto the fingerprint sensor and unlock the phone while you sleep without ever fiddling with the bootloader.
"The masses" used to use completely unencrypted devices for decades. That doesn't mean they don't deserve security, but it's up to us, the technologically savvy ones, to determine how to implement it and which trade-offs are worth making to provide it. The term "security" only ever has any meaning when paired with a threat model, and some threats are more plausible than others. Some people will absolutely require proper evil-maid resistance, some wouldn't care the slightest. The common masses would be equally surprised if you told them that they can't change the boot animation on their phone without preventing access to their bank app, so go figure.
I'm not terribly concerned about an evil maid entering my room at night and managing to authenticate my fingerprint without waking me.
I do, however, regularly have to check my phone in at [places] and am highly concerned about that.
I'm not interested in bringing about a tech dystopia to combat it, either, but I don't think those are our only two choices.
Threat modeling is important, and selectively false equivalences aren't helping matters, but only add to the theatrics.
I'm pretty sure that most of the actual evil-maids out there are phone owner's partners that they tend to share their bed with at night.
And yes, I don't think those are the only two available choices either. I already mentioned not just one, but two other ones above. They have some tradeoffs, but so does anything. Personally I'd choose a slightly less convenient option over a tech dystopia without second thoughts, but not everyone is tech savvy enough to even recognize the tradeoffs being made, and ultimately in the vast majority of cases it's not the users who make that choice, but Google and Apple.
> You can have "some debate" on absolutely anything, but that doesn't yet mean it makes any sense.
Sure, but from the fact that anything can be debated it does not follow that any given debate is nonsensical, which is kind of what you did there.
> ...whatever debate you're referring to is unlikely to be held in good faith.
I don't know which is odder, that assertion, or the notion that two completely different security models can't be debated in good faith because they're effectively identical, because of hand-wavy reasons like, "You have communication protocols on top of IOMMUs as well which are subject to exactly the same security considerations as potential exploits in the USB stack..."
Certainly there's some kind of argument to be made that the Librem 5 is relevant to this post as its adherents see it as a viable alternative to iOS and/or Android-based devices. I disagree, but everyone's willing to make different compromises and that's fair.
I only mention that because a contingent of voices as high in volume as they are few in number endlessly shoehorning the Librem 5 into numerous threads no matter how much of a non-sequitur it takes, has me suddenly paying more attention these days to what's coming from the Purism camp. The more I do the more disingenuous the rhetoric seems.
It may just be a coincidence, but for a project with such a fraught history and tarnished reputation, it doesn't do anything to increase my trust in it.
> no matter how much of a non-sequitur it takes
I explained in the other comment why I thing that GNU/Linux phones are relevant, where I posted. You can discuss my arguments, but you can't just dismiss them all with a single general wording like this.
> a project with such a fraught history and tarnished reputation
Another unsubstantiated attack on a free software project from the GrapheneOS crowd, with no links or argumentation.
> I only mention that because a contingent of voices as high in volume as they are few in number endlessly shoehorning the Librem 5 into numerous threads no matter how much of a non-sequitur it takes, has me suddenly paying more attention these days to what's coming from the Purism camp. The more I do the more disingenuous the rhetoric seems.
It seems to be mainly fsflover. You can search “Librem 5” messages in HN and it’s flooded with messages by them.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1777075200&dateRange=custom&...
https://hn-wrapped.kadoa.com/fsflover
At least I don't reply to every comment about GrapheneOS with "it's not as free as Librem 5 and you have to pay Google, and you have to rely on blobs running on the main CPU" etc. This is exactly what the GrapheneOS crowd is doing with my comments.
I have to admit that I had a kind of knee-jerk reaction there, as this "debate" is very often brought up in FUD pieces without much substance behind it.
No true Scotsman would ever use binary blobs.
Well, what about PlayStation, etc? Yes it has a PC inside. But, you own it with exceptions. A terminal for games. Similar to phones now. Some advantages and disadvantages here. Anyway, they Own it, they Built it and they have Their rules.
If someone can push nonconsensual updates to your device then you never owned it in the first place.
I've been planning my move from Google for a while but this is getting me to pull the trigger. GrapheneOS, Kagi and Fastmail it is. I'll keep the gmail account open for mail forwarding but that's about it.
We'd have to make Linux on mobile a viable option.
My Starlink receiver already isn’t mine. It’s locked to one account.
I can’t give it to someone else to use without contacting the company and registering it.
I can’t donate it to goodwill and have someone else use it.
I've found that releasing and maintaining production Android apps has become more difficult in the last decade as compared to iOS which (surprisingly) has improved slightly.
Google Play removed a perfectly functional NFC utility app we released after a year of no updates (despite the fact that it didn't require any to work on the latest Android version at the time). By contrast, the App Store doesn't care as long as we continue to pay the annual developer fee.
We opted to open source the app and let users sideload the app as an alternative; now that will be far more difficult as we are no longer "verified" Google Play developers.
Really unfortunate, glad I'm not an Android user myself.
Well, that would be a very polite way for a mugger to describe his plan.
In all seriousness, Apple doesn’t even make you submit an ID to publish on the App Store.
Algorithmically removing words from a headline with confidence that what comes out will be better is the precise intersection of stupid and arrogant that defines the modern tech industry.
Vote with everything you have/can. Money, attitude, consumption, political connections. Make these greedy (beep) regret it. Users and developers stop using Play store.
Cannot wait for linux phones to be ready... When I switch my current phone I'll check out how the Jolla status is
My phone has not been "mine" for a decade and a half now, and the ability to install a self signed.apk has very little to do with this.
I have tons of apps I installed (mostly from Play Store) since like 2012, and that were grandfathered in through Samsung Switch from phone to phone as I replaced them with one another. A lot of data in them, too. Will they, and the data, just ... disappear?! When exactly do I have to do the 24 hour song and dance to prevent that? All of this sounds too bad to be true, honestly.
Okay, so buy a new phone I guess that is yours?
Sure, and don't get to go on public transport (or pay surcharges for paper tickets, depending on if your country still has that option), don't get to participate when everyone else can add music from their phone at a party, don't get to buy leftover food because the proprietary app doesn't run on there (it kicks me out for fraud detection half the time already), don't get to visit various websites that fingerprint your device and find that it might be a 'bot' (hello Cloudflare proxying about half of high-income countries' Internet), you pay extra for groceries compared to people that get discounts in some app, cannot login to government services, cannot do most things that requires being 13 years or older once this EU age verification app is implemented (no more HN for you!), etc etc. Very great option, welcome back to the soviet computing era
It's not optional anymore to own a Google/Apple smartphone in a lot of places. You can play this "just vote with your wallet" game but it's not a winning move
It is challenging, but fighting for your freedoms is the only way not to loose them. Sent from my daily driver Librem 5.
WHERE DO I SEND MY MONEY?
This is the question this website should be answering. Signing petitions is all well and good, but I want to vote with my wallet.
WHERE DO I SEND MY MONEY???
One thing I will do in the future is buy a nifty Motorola / GrapheneOS collab phone, but I can't do that yet. So for now: WHERE DO I SEND MY MONEY?
It is literally amazing to me that people aren't giving this as an option on such social coordination sites. Who is willing and able to sue Google over this? Who is actually doing it?
*WHERE DO I SEND MY MONEY*
If you intend to buy a Motorola/GrapheneOS phone, donating in the meantime may appeal to you: https://grapheneos.org/donate
Money won't fix anything here: https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/governments...
The central control is the point.
How does it affect GNU/Linux phones?
I think this is a failure of imagination :-)
> WHERE DO I SEND MY MONEY?
Good question. Here you go: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5
If you want an outdated, insecure, and extremely overpriced phone, sure, go ahead.
It's literally 2018 hardware being sold for 800 bucks. 3 GB of RAM? Seriously? The iPhone XS, also from 2018, has 4 GB of RAM, just saying.
And regarding the security: https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux-phones.html
> you want an outdated, insecure
Please stop spreading FUD. I replied here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47945696
> 3 GB of RAM? Seriously?
https://puri.sm/posts/the-danger-of-focusing-on-specs/
This was a wrong HN link. Should be this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47953176
Sounds like 2027 will be the year of the Linux phone. Thanks for the support Google.
Well, it's never been yours, unfortunately. Every Android device with Google services is just a terminal with remotely controlled set of features, Google has lend to your phone manufacturer (not even to you!), and could shut down any time.
Is anyone considering a fork of Android that would not have this, um, "feature"?
This feature only exists for phones with Google Play Services, so yes.
Which is pretty much every Android phone. Again, is there any version of Android that doesn't have that service automatically installed and running?
This is goggle's version of windoze 11
There's never been a better time to switch to a linux phone...
This should be #1 in HN
Does this make Android the same as iOS now, in terms of how locked down it is?
Can you install different firmware/OS (tweaked and developed by others not sanctioned by apple) on your iPhone?
Can you install unlimited unsigned apps on iPhone?
If answer is "No", than No, android is still very far from as locked down as iOS
First they came for root privileges, but I didn't say anything because I hardly used it.
Then they came for F-Droid, and I didn't say anything because I don't know how to contact them.
Then ...
I love that it's so easy to tell that this was built with Claude.
On one hand, having a free for all is very good, especially for developers, and for programmability of our devices as such. Screw iPads.
On the other hand, malware which coaxes normies into installing unverified apks, is an undeniable fact of life. It's nice to be pontificating as a power user who has never been phished or whose devices never became botnet zombies in their life.
On yet another hand, higher-end malware (made by those who can afford the store fees) is there on the freaking play store and app store, so, I guess, shrug
vaguely curious how this is going to affect Amazon's FireOS
which is basically android with their own app store layer
FireToolBox has gotten really powerful with workarounds
especially with the new Shizuku pseudo-root via adb
I predict this same restriction for Windows 12.
It will end up badly for them in EU
So... just like the App Store on iOS?
Phone is yours. Software it runs not.
I realize this is a different discussion, but shouldn't it be? The way that it has been since home computers were a thing, as far as I know at least? I don't think we'd stand where we stand today if Commodore and other hardware vendors had required a license on every piece of software from the get-go (if we pretend that there was a known, exportable, and safe signature scheme back then)
Should the GPL3 software you download and run also be yours?
Pardon?
A phone is worthless without software.
Buying a jolla phone now!
I have to admit, in ancient times when the googleists could point schadenfreude at the appleists and brag about how open Android was compared to iOS, I was a bit envious. Now that terminal enshittification has infected Android too, I'm not feeling schadenfreude in turn. It's a sad day all around.
The level of panic here feels totally out of proportion. While these restrictions are a sad reminder of where personal computing is headed, the shift toward appliances over computers isn’t a new trend at all.
What’s more frustrating is the "your android phone will stop being yours" narrative. Where is that supposed to lead the reader? Moving to iOS to escape restrictions is a total contradiction, as the situation there isn't even comparable. The people who actually care - the F-Droid users and independent developers - are already used to jumping through hurdles and bypassing "install anyway" warnings. They won't be deterred, and new users will learn.
Honestly, you have to wonder if the goal of these dramatic campaigns is just to scare ignorant users into the Apple ecosystem or maybe to prop up emerging Linux phones.
But has anyone actually tried a mainstream Linux phone that isn't a nightmare to use? Compare that experience to the dozens of Android models that work perfectly with LineageOS or other variants. Those are 100% daily drivers with the power, cameras, and battery life fully working. Instead of helpful criticism, these headlines feel like they’re just herding people away from the only practical "open" hardware we actually have.
Another downside of this, besides what’s mentioned, is people becoming insensitive about security, when they get to blindly do that process to install legitimate apps multiple times, it will be easier to trick them to install malicious ones, so you are not improving security at all.
The opt out is graphene os yeah?
Not much, as it only works on very few high end phones not sold in most countries. Hopefully their Motorola partnership will expand its availability but I'm not confident that'll happen anytime soon.
Sadly forget about it - GrapheneOS will only work on Motorola __flagship__ devices, and most of their budget phones are not even made by Motorola, but rather by the odm such as Tinno, where it's not even possible to unlock the bootloader without exploits.
GrapheneOS will sadly stay unaffordable for many.
Ideally yes, otherwise any other AOSP-based ROM. There are many, and they support far more devices than Graphene, though implementations of e.g. Google Play services is more hacky.
The most well-known: https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/
Yes, but there are issues.
You can’t use stuff like banking apps on a modified device and losing access to normal android devices would be a big blow to the momentum of the F-Droid community. GrapheneOS might not be a big enough community to sustain work on the projects delivered by F-Droid.
>You can’t use stuff like banking apps on a modified device
IME such apps are few and far between. The most trouble I ran into is play store refusing to show apps because they claim the app isn't compatible with the device, but that can be worked around with aurora store.
They really aren't. The number of apps requiring Play Integrity grows every day, my own bank's app hasn't worked in years and I've long given up on it, I just use it on a second stock device now.
And Google has an answer to the "just install the APK from somewhere else" workaround, too. Many apps now integrate a check that prevents them from running if they're not properly linked to the Play Store.
Are banking apps much more useful than banking websites, anyway?
Depends highly on the bank and what part of the world you're in. Some banks have only a website and no app. Some banks have only an app and no website. Some require an app to access the website. The landscape is widely varied.
Don't know what the landscape is like in the US, but here in Europe, many banks require the app for any sort of online payment. There is no alternative. If your phone isn't stock, you're screwed.
I think parent is talking about Play Integrity being integrated into banking apps. It's a hit or miss depending on the bank, some will be fine without, some with integrate it but not rely on it to directly refuse login, some will require a lower integrity level, and some will actually require the highest integrity level leading to issues on custom ROMs.
My Android is running Lineage without Google Play Services (no microg either).
I had an app that I needed to use, and the only available log-in method was via firebase's SMS. Firebase flat out refused to allow me to login because of Google Play Integrity, and there was no web only option.
I ended up having to use my spouse's iPhone...
>My Android is running Lineage without Google Play Services (no microg either).
>Firebase flat out refused to allow me to login because of Google Play Integrity
Sounds like the issue is that you don't have play services installed, rather than play integrity specifically.
> losing access to normal android devices would be a big blow to the momentum of the F-Droid community.
For me it seems the opposite - if these "normal" (GMS spyware) Android devices lose the access to F-Droid and it will only be possible to install malware/adware from Google Play, then maybe that will push more people to value unlocking the bootloader..
I know this isn't the case with all banks, but for whatever my anecdata is worth I've been using a number of banking apps on mine for years, so it's incorrect to say that banking apps can't be used.
I wonder then if the workaround for THAT (losing access to Banking / "Google trust-deriving apps") is to get a second device, wifi-only no-SIM G-Android.
Cumbersome, but any other deterring reasons why "not a good workaround"?
[dead]
Better to share how to install apps and alternative app stores instead of fearmongering around very reasonable security measures.
Mobile ecosystem is crap as a dev, crap as a user.
People don't like the phrase enshittification, but the process Doctrow describes is so accurate (serve the users, then serve business customers at the expense of users, then serve the platform at the expense of users and business customers) it's hard not to see it everywhere. Phone platforms fit the template exactly, sadly.
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Isnt the title a bit dramatic? I remember reading you can still install apps but you just need to click a few buttons.
In addition to what others have said, it means some developers who were building for Android are going to stop. You can't install an app when someone is obstructed from building it in the first place.
> every Android app developer must register centrally with Google before their software can be installed on any device. Not just Play Store apps: all apps.
> Registration requires:
> Paying a fee to Google
> Agreeing to Google's Terms and Conditions
> Surrendering your government-issued identification
> Providing evidence of your private signing key
> Listing all current and all future application identifiers
Google is not an entity you can can trust with this.
From TFA:
You left out the crucial bit:
that seems better, not worse, that they don't implement this on OS level, so no gapps users are not affected at all
Sounds a bit like trying to transfer my own money to myself at the bank. I.e. it seems designed to prevent old people getting scammed.
That's exactly what this is: Google is trying to prevent tech illiterate users from installing malware.
(Or at least, that's their take on this. You can choose to read between the lines, or not, as to whether they have other motivations also.)
Of course they have other motivations
But for 1 person wanting to run their own software there are hundreds of people with the potential to install malware/crapware/etc
Had to read that sentence twice. You really think that there's more people getting scammed via "please tap the build number seven times and then go to extra settings and enable untrusted installs and then go to this website that I will dictate the URL of and you should ignore that install warning" etc etc etc. to install an apk to run software that can barely access more than a simple webpage could, than there are people (like HN'ers) who install apk files from github and f-droid?!
(Also note that "crapware" describes basically every app you find in google's store. I try on occasion, when nobody made an open source this-or-that, and it's such a minefield. If that's the thing you're trying to avoid, I don't know how you could possibly feel positive about a requirement to only use the Play Store for the tech-illiterate)
> more people getting scammed via "please tap the build number seven times and then go to extra settings and enable untrusted installs and then go to this website that I will dictate the URL of and you should ignore that install warning" etc etc etc.
I don't really understand. You seem to be against the 'annoyance' of the protections, but that annoyance is precisely why the scammed count is lower, no?
I certainly believe _more generally_ that the market for scam victims is much bigger than the market for sideloaders, for example.
What I'm against is the mandatory registration to get a key signed by a party we don't elect, who controls all (soft-mandatory^1) devices that aren't controlled by the other party we didn't elect, and both are controlled by a government that we have no say in and is acting increasingly hostile towards everyone but fellow belligerents (Israel, Russia.. seeing a pattern here).
Your "it's just a bit annoying" argument seems irrelevant compared to that, even if it would reduce scams, which I have seen no evidence for or against. Did you find or come across any evidence for it?
^1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47940687
> the market for scam victims is much bigger than the market for sideloaders
That makes no sense. Of course the market for "scam victims" is current-earth-population.com minus one (the person doing the scamming); this is a universal constant you're comparing against
If you mean the number of people who would potentially get scammed by being told to do a dozen steps to install some app which can barely do more to aid the scam than a webpage could, then I'm interested in how you end up with those figures!
Given that maybe every 20th person is decently tech-literate and that I have yet to come across a scam where installing software on your phone is a component of it (including via google's; just any kind of mobile software installation), the way I figure the "market sizes" are about 400 million to somewhere around nil
> You really think that there's more people getting scammed via "please tap the build number seven times
Yes, because this whole procedure is new
> Also note that "crapware" describes basically every app you find in google's store
Go back to emacs then I guess
Installing apks has required going into settings for years now. 'Scary' steps aren't new
> Go back to emacs then I guess
way to have a conversation
Define malware.
The scams this directly targets are well known and common. Someone gets a phishing message, they have someone install some sort of malware on the device, then their bank accounts are drained into some offshore account never to be seen again.
That's why there's a requirement for restarting the phone and waiting 24 hours.
The restart ends the connection for any remote-access software or phone call that might be driving the operation -- and the 24 hour wait period breaks the "urgency" part of the scam that prevents other people who know better from stopping the vicim from continuing.
Malware is whatever Google says it is.
Yes! That is because banking malware is specifically what is being targeted here: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/android-de...
To be fair, that's a one time process. You do not need to do that for every app you want to sideload.
The malware issue that the flow is designed to mitigate is a very real problem. Perhaps there is a better way, but it's not immediately clear what that is.
I see zero trouble as long as it requires no additional identification, no additional payment, and no mandatory time limit for the sideloaded apps.
That is, fine by me. I can wait for 24 hours once in a few years when I acquire a new mobile phone.
You are thinking about it from the point of view of an enthusiast/hacker who wants to put their homebrew stuff on it. But this is also tightening around developers who may want to distribute their applications to lay users.
Lay users use Play Store.
Users who use F-Droid are already not as lay. If you distribute stuff that Play Store would ban, your users are likely not as lay, too.
Yes, it's inconvenient, but I see it as a good-faith attempt to limit exposure of lay users to scams, not some power grab.
Those developers will pay $25 for identity verification and have no issues.
Unless they do something google doesn't like, or trip one of their many automated systems that ban them without recourse. Or they are compelled to revoke a key by a government.
Revocations are for apps being malware and nothing else, much like macOS Gatekeeper (Apple doesn't even revoke certs used by Warez groups to sign cracked apps).
Automated bans can be an issue, but that's an edge case. Google already had the functionality to 'revoke' an app if ordered to do so by a legal authority.
It is much more important to make a real world attack - something that is draining wallets of ordinary people across Thailand/Brazil/SEA in general - harder to achieve. One thing is a political goal of some people in the west, the other is an ordinary person not having the money to feed themselves because a scammer stole it all.
I can't trust Google will keep to that, sorry. Nor can I accept harms being twisted into a further centralised accumulation of power (especially when Google, with all their resources, could likely do much more to prevent these scams than grabbing that power for themselves)
Well, the very good news is that Google is not seeking your trust. You have no say at all. This is the new system, it benefits actual real people over HN commenters and you will just have to deal with it.
Google doesn't have the ability to change the way banking apps work with regards to transferring money from one account to another in Malaysia/Brazil/Thailand. That would be a matter for the national Governments. This is the best approach available.
I'm aware I lack power here, but you seem to be trying to convince me it's a good thing.
[flagged]
Drivers license leaks are surging.
Google's identity verification system relies on multiple factors, not solely drivers licensees or other national identity documents.
There are exactly two groups of people who sideload APKs:
* people who know what they're doing
* people who are being victimized
Why would you do all that to install an app in a device that you own? It's bollocks.
Because grandmas all over the world are getting swindled by scam apps.
Look, I can't locally install a web extension I wrote on an open-source Firefox browser, because security. I have to install a Developer Edition, or get the extension reviewed and signed by Mozilla, for the very same reasons of thwarting scammers. Is this stifling, or is it making my browser not mine? Is anybody making a big deal out of that?
The world we inhabit is not always friendly. It has a ton of determined and sophisticated bad actors, and a lot of people with less technical savvy than you and me. We have to deal with that, instead of being cantankerous.
It's not obvious to me that this will help much with scamming. Especially when it affects safer app repositories like F-droid more than the cesspit that is the official Play store.
F-Droid is not a safer app repository:
https://privsec.dev/posts/android/f-droid-security-issues/
And most Android banking malware is distributed through unsafe sideload installs (as opposed to much safer Gatekeeper-style installs, which is what is coming) and are fed to victims through complex attacks involving obtaining a victim's personal information and calling them while credibly pretending to be a local authority or a bank representative. You can read about this wherever you get news about cyber crime.
This is a scourge in South East Asia and Google can do some good here. The only cost is whining from non-technical people. Everyone else will go pay $25 or whatever and sign their app.
Play Store being a cesspit is indeed a problem! But it still is making a constant effort to drive away scammers, so scams don't last too long there. Scammers show sleek-looking web pages offering to install an "official app" from their own apk. Or they have an app that clandestinely sideloads another app. This is being curbed.
But it's limited to a one-time action, not encumbered by additional papers or payment. I don't foresee any trouble using F-Droid (which I use a lot) after I have dismissed the scary screens and confirmed that I know what I'm doing.
>It's not obvious to me that this will help much with scamming.
Because as a reader to this forum, you're probably more tech savvy that the average person. Moreover this type of scam seems to be more common in Asia than the West, see:
https://cdn.economistdatateam.com/videos/cyber-scams/fake-vi...
https://www.economist.com/interactive/asia/2026/04/10/scam-i...
They convince users to download a "government app", grant it accessibility permissions, then use that to take over their phone and drain their bank accounts.
>Especially when it affects safer app repositories like F-droid more than the cesspit that is the official Play store.
Where do you draw the line? If you whitelist f-droid, do you have to whitelist third party f-droid repos too? What about other app "stores" like obtanium? Moreover f-droid being less of a "cesspool" is likely because its reach is smaller, not because it has better moderation.
I'm aware of the way the scams work. I'm also aware that scammers tend to be much more motivated to jump through hoops that are put in front them (more so than legitimate users!). Scammers can also talk people through many, many warning signs.
Scammers cannot talk people past a 24 hour wait. This attack is built upon pressure and operates at a scale that makes stealing many identies, building different-enough apps to avoid getting flagged by Google and signing them all non-viable.
>Scammers cannot talk people past a 24 hour wait.
Oh yeah, I forgot they're bound to some code of rules they follow. Scammers, of all people.
[flagged]
Please follow the site guidelines regarding (avoiding) personal attacks.
I can think of plenty of scams that take days in the making. Even the classic "redeem" ones have people hooked in the thing for like a week ...
[dead]
>Wait 24 hours
Somehow bank vaults and heroin storage boxes don’t take this long.
The 24 hour wait period is so the scammer can't use the element of urgency to keep the victim on the phone where they don't have the opportunity to speak with trusted friends/family who would stop the scam.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling-off_period_(consumer_r.... It's an old solution to an old problem: give the potential victim a chance to think clearly while the damage can still be undone.
This isn't referring to the efforts Google has gone to try to thwart sideloading.
It is another requirement of Google's, where all developers must be registered to them and apps must be signed by them and anything that isn't will be blocked.
From NewPipe : https://github.com/woheller69/FreeDroidWarn?tab=readme-ov-fi...
I wouldn't consider this "a few buttons", it's enough to turn off the less savvy users
Less savy and unmotivated users.. maybe? Whats the main use cases for newpipe? Let me guess: get premium features for free (no ads, downloads etc).
Do you think people wont click 9 buttons and wait 24hs for this?
Its like people forgot how pirated windows/sw used to run on millions (billions) on devices in the past until ads (and some convenience from non-so-cheap-anymore subscriptions) became the norm
Our phones stopped being ours ever since we accepted phones with locked bootloaders. I hope Android and iOS both disappear. Trading freedom for security has resulted in what we knew would happen.
It is absolutely maddening that I cannot see files on my own phone.
And very very very few devices still allow getting around this. Often at a cost of significantly degraded experience, as Magisk plays the cat and mouse game of trying to hide your illegal access privileges to your own devices from your bank or some random app that decide to throw a Play Integrity check in.
Tip of the anti-personal computing spear, a complete denial of the user agency. Absolutely wretchedly forsaken.
Lockable bootloaders are the best of both worlds.
The real mystery is why anyone remotely aware of the Free Software movement would have ever been duped into advocating for handheld computers so hostile to their own goals.
Since forever.
The fixed phones belonged to the phone company and were only rented under contract.
Most prepaid and contract mobile phones were locked to the operator and we even had to pay extra to unblock them.
App stores were gated through operators, and required devkits for some of them.
Ah, and none of them got updates, if they did, usually required additional software to install them.
Ugh such overreaction. ADB is still a thing. Apple doesn't even have an official command like tool where you can just push an IPA to your phone. Goodness.
For how long will ADB work? Obviously Google doesn't want user to install apps outside of their control
Google doesn't want millions of people to have every cent of their money stolen.
This measure is about making it harder to pull off a specific type of scam that is plaguing South East Asia. No conspiracy.
For actual information on the purpose of this change rather than conspiracies, I refer you to https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/android-de...
Since the victims of these scams do not typically own a traditional computer/cannot be pressured to get to one quickly, ADB will remain a thing.
With that reasoning every action would be justified to stop scammers. Google should capture all your calls and check if there could be scamming going on, right?
The current malware situation at android store situation does not help to carry that point:
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2025/03/18/60-milli...
> https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/26/apps_android_malware/
> https://www.androidheadlines.com/2026/04/novoice-android-mal...
> Google should capture all your calls and check if there could be scamming going on, right?
If you're dumb enough to own a Pixel then arguably they're doing something just as bad.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/1097qm0/manual...
> Google doesn't want millions of people to have every cent of their money stolen.
Megacorporations like Google do not care a single bit about ordinary people. They only care about making more money. How do they make more money? By preventing people from installing NewPipe and Blokada.
I sorta get that reasoning, but is a 24 hour cooldown really going to stop scammers? They're already used to multi-day scams, so wouldn't they just say they'll call back in a day to finish the process?
Yup. The specific scam here is built upon preventing the victim from talking to trusted individuals. A cooldown breaks the spell.
Complex, multi-day pig butchering stuff is not what Google is going after here or would have any hope to defeat. But they can deal with banking malware.
I could still push an app to my phone via adb after this nonsense gets implemented?
Google is altering the deal. Pray Google does not alter it any further.