641
This framing still sucks. Google is blocking apps THEY don't approve on YOUR phone.
Agreed. But one climb down means potentially more, as needed. 🤞🏻
Only if the protests continue with full force.
They won't kill side loading (the fact we even call it side loading instead of simply installing software is a problem). They'll just shoot it in the knees a little. No big deal.
They'll be able to stop a group of less technically savvy people, who currently are sideloading, from using their phones the way they choose. Apparently that's good enough for Google.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They already don't let you use Google pay if you don't give them control of your phone. This is just tightening the noose a little bit.
People shouldn't use google pay in the first place. All of these things being tied together by the same group is a problem in and of itself.
People shouldn't use google ~~pay in the first place~~.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Push 3 degrees harder, relent 2 when there's resistance.
Meaning, 3 steps ahead for them if there's no resistance. 1 step ahead if there is.
Wait some time, repeat.
That is more the fault/worry of the financial sector and not G. The fact that they gave up this amount of leeway is shocking. Their risk tolerance is very low and giving G the ability to manage virtual cards and allow payments with them is huge in itself.
Even Privacy, which does part of the same thing/idea, still only works for some cards, doesn't work at all for credit cards (last time I checked), and has been in the sector for a similar amount of time.
G had to lock down Pay to appease the financial sector's risk management. Anything else was DOA.
I wonder what an alternate history where Google chose not to become evil would look like.
What if they had looked at Microsoft's Palladium proposal and thought, as pretty much everyone outside institutional IT departments did that locked devices with remote attestation was a nightmare scenario best forgotten, refused to build it, and made an effort to prevent anyone else from doing so on top of Android? Safetynet didn't appear until 5-6 years after Android launched to the public. What if it never did? Android already had enough momentum by that point I don't think the financial sector could refuse to be on it no matter what risk management said.
Well, I kind of know what happened in that scenario... because it did. Until Pay, there was Wallet. The original Wallet, not the current one. Wallet had a physical and virtual prepaid debit card, that you would load up and manage in the app. I used it a few times (new tech woo), and distinctively remember ordering at a McDonald's, the clerk announced the cost, I held my Nexus 7 to the new nfc pad, they started to say 'uhh no you have to-' and then a success beep, and their jaw dropped. They thought it was nuts, I told them in a few years 'this will be everywhere'.
So before Pay, there was Wallet, and it's own little sandbox of testing if anyone would use this. A couple years later the Wallet card discontinued, and Pay took its place.
A different Wallet/Pay implementation is a possible outcome, but I'm thinking of a bigger picture where Android phones are more like PCs: no non-unlockable bootloaders, no remote attestation anywhere, barriers to root detection at the OS level, third-party ROMs encouraged.
The early days of Android were like that. I wonder if things had developed along that path, would we have a paradise for power users? A security nightmare for mainstream users? Both? Neither?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Credit card in your phone case, use your banks' website, 95+% of people right there.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I fucking hate that word. It's not 'sideloading' to install on my own device what I want to install, to use the apps I want to use; to not use the apps I don't want to use. I am not 'sideloading' anything when I install programs on my PC. No different on my phone.
Fuck off with all these new bullshit terms that are only used to imply that what we're doing (with our own devices) is somehow outside the norm, to justify the constant enshittifcation and the growing stranglehold these corporations want on our lives. It's infuriating.
It's not a "bullshit new term", it's three decades old and means transferring files locally from one device to another, instead of directly downloading or uploading from/to an external server.
The origin goes back to MP3.com and i-drive in late 90's, but the most common sideloading people did was downloading music to their PC using services like iTunes, and transferring them to their mp3 players. As they did often with early PDA and smartphone apps, where the term for Android comes from - get the .apk on your computer, transfer it to your phone, and install it.
Sideloading.
Okay, but Google uses it in a way where directly going to the server they host F-Droid.apk, downloading and installing it counts as sideloading.
If anything, using Google Play is sideloading by that definition, since I can't just download a release from the originators' server, they need to first transfer it into a secondary location, Google's servers, and I can only install it from there.
Fair, it's not a new term. I was born in the 80'ies, I'm familiar with the concept.
However, it's now being used with new bullshit meaning (i.e. going outside the Google/Apple app and their own offered selection), and media are normalizing this use.
load more comments
(6 replies)
I'm sure there's something in the EULA about how it's actually their device and we are just licensing it, just like software. I hate this tech feudalism so much.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
So about those linux phones....
Aaaaaaany day now..... guys..?
(I have a pinephone and no, it is absolutely nowhere near ready)
load more comments
(2 replies)
The company says it is now developing an “advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn’t verified.” This installation flow will include safeguards to protect people who are being coerced into installing a dangerous app, or tricked by a scammer, along with “clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved.”
IIRC we already had to enable a setting and confirm a warning popup. What are they gonna do? Add more popups? A captcha-"puzzle"? Less easy to accept dialogs?
Probably a captcha puzzle, or some other thing that requires you to connect to them and surrender your data for free for their commercial purposes.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Honestly a less easy to accept dialog would go a long way.
Just make it require ADB. Iv had my grandfather fall victim to a crypto scam that got him to install a app on his phone.
As much as we hate it, google is the only one who has any power to prevent abuse of the stupid, elderly and gullible. Someone has too.
There is a line of going to far to protect people that just makes things worse for everyone. But the reality is, our freedom comes at the expense of others freedom.
Finding the balance is hard.
Hot take: We shouldn't lock down devices by default to a point where they protect even the most vulnerable.
Child safety locks exist for a reason and can also be used for the elderly.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Nah screw needing adb, that absolutely kills free and open source software stores like fdroid, and fdroid have said as much that Google's then planned signing requirements would lead fdroid to stop.
The only way I'd even be remotely OK with another adb requirement is if
- it's a requirement to unlock the ability to install unsigned apps, ie it's not to an install an app but set a flag
- #1 becomes a requirement for Google certification so all manufacturers have to allow it
- It doesn't cause other types of attestation to fail that we see with unlocked, rooted and third party roms failing certain checks preventing some apps, most commonly banking ones from working
I think whatever is required for third party apps and stores should also be required for play store. No special treatment for their own files.
Eg: "Warning: Are you sure you trust GooglePlayStore.apk? This software might be harmful."
I reckon that Google would magically get the messaging exactly right with that requirement.
load more comments
(5 replies)
In today's society everything needs to be baby proofed. Protect this protect that. People need to take responsibility for their actions.
Your grandpa got greedy and wanted to invest money to make more money. Now he got scammed and he learned his lesson. Next time guided by prior experience he should/will be more careful. If not he will loose more money until he realises he shouldn't be clicking and installing everything he sees.
And that applies to everyone. You alone are responsible for your actions, not anybody else
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
A "concession" to use your phone, and you need to give your address, phone number, and ID. Fuck off.
Meanwhile the Play Store is full of scams. This isn't about safety, it making sure they get a cut from the scam apps.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The company has confirmed that it is developing an "advanced flow" to let experienced users install apps from unverified developers
How about don't change it at all, Google
"side" loading is just normal loading for me. I have one single app from the google app store. (It's cookie clicker 😂)
load more comments
(5 replies)
I'm not worried about sideloading because I use GrapheneOS, but I'm worried that development for various apps might stop...
They must really hate ReVanced.
Oh, I bet. They probably hate GrayJay more though.
GrapheneOS is luckily out of their jurisdiction :)
Billionaires doing what a billionaire does: feign a reason to kneecap a service, force complaints about its ineffectiveness, then use that as an excuse to dismantle it entirely. I am so tired of this.
Weird that they want to do all the verification themselves and not just allow certificate signing using verified CAs. Oh well it's not weird because we all know Google does this to fight back against third party stores and to get developers back to their shitty one and of course to better track them.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Boiling the frog
Great, more hoops to jump thr... I mean... an "advanced flow", for gaining the privilege of installing apps of your choosing
edit: this is an article from November, its not something new...
bullshit! if this is actually what the "new" rule is, the exact same thing was already part of their unacceptable original plans.
To accommodate educational and noncommercial development, Google will introduce a new limited developer account type aimed at students and hobbyists. These accounts will not undergo full identity verification but will instead allow app installations on a restricted number of registered devices.
no to any kind of accounts, to any kind of developer registration, and any kind of install limits! its none of google's business what apps people install outside their store, and so they shouldn't be able to enforce a global installation limit for any apps!
remember when people were actually excited about new android releases because they were weird and consumer friendly?
Cool story, goog.
I'm just going to keep waiting for a linux/foss phone so that its features and capabilities are actually predictable year to year.
But maybe I'm just too picky about what features and capabilities I want. I admit I've gotten used to some pretty outlandish stuff like... lemme check my notes here... "the device does the things I tell it to do." Real galaxy-brain shit!
load more comments
(4 replies)
This is from November, and is about the 'student accounts' thing which doesn't at all help the central issue of being forced to make an account to distribute your app
Perfect time for the Chinese to setup a shell company in Mexico that sells smartphones & devices with AOSP-android-based OS to the US. It'll sell like hot cakes.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Fuck all of this tech bros enshittification surveillance bullshit. I'm going to Radio Shack and buy a Heath Kit! /s
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
641 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
81653 readers
6496 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS