It's not realistically possible because hardware makers collude with Google and keep their specs secret from anyone who isn't using Google's software. (among a myriad other reasons)
Don't use smartphones at all, they're only bad for you and you don't need them. Do anything you can to either get away from them or start moving away from them.
He says one thing that isn't true. He blames Apple for standardizing the concept of not being able to install applications on your "computer" (phone).
This was the case long before Apple, and started at the carrier telco's. Apple was the one who wrestled the control of the app store from the telco's, who were even worse!
Myself and a buddy built cool fun a bartender app (recipes for alcohol drinks) for the Danger Hiptop. It was rejected by the telco (t-mobile) because they were afraid of lawsuits due to the 21+ nature of the app. We never really got a formal rejection notice, they just stopped responding to us. It was also one of those things where you had to build the app first, submit it (to Danger, who then presented it to the telco), take the risk on everything yourself, and then get silently rejected. What a mess.
Maybe it's time for the legal requirement that every computing device or microchip more powerful than 1 MIPS and having writable storage, must support reprogramming, to prevent creating digital waste.
I think it's time for us to go back to having mobile phones (texting, virtual credit cards, tethered wifi hotspots etc). separate from mobile storage and compute (mp3 players, cameras etc.).
The modern mobile ecosystem is selling games consoles when the nerds want mobile Unix workstations.
Yeah, if Google kills ReVanced, I may as well get an iPhone. What's the difference at this point. You can't even unlock the bootloader on most of the quality Android phones.
However, the crusade against the word and concept of "sideloading" is really weird. Yeah, installing from the repo is normal, and all the windows-land "download an .exe/.msi to invoke an installer" ways that then may or may not update the app are unusual and apart from an ordered process of system management.
The proper alternative to Google Play is F-Droid, not downloading/baking .apks.
Android phones still have a huge price advantage on iphone: the least expensive iphone is 800€, the least expensive Google pixel is 550€ (which is much higher that 2 years ago), and the least expensive Samsung is 300€.
I assume my Galaxy S20 is immune to this because it's not getting (major) updates anymore. I'll continue using it as long as I can to avoid this. Does anyone know the most recent Galaxy phone that will be safe from this? Should I get one or two extras?
I'm kind of surprised by this. Google is already under a lot of heat, especially in Europe. All sorts of lawsuits everywhere because of they monopoly abuse. And they decide to pull this move?
I saw a youtube video that the latest Pixel 10 doesn't have a physical sim card slot - only eSIM. Just when I thought the sideloading shit was bad enough.
The government isn't going to save us, they love it and are in bed with these corporations; the more control, the better. Locked down computing, no anonymity online, the threat of losing banking/credit accounts, and authorities showing up to arrest you if you challenge the current dogma too strongly. We're so cooked.
This doesn't stop with handheld computers. If Google will be able to get away with it on phones (which is FAR from guaranteed atm), they will do it on Chromebooks. Microsoft will do it on Windows. Apple will do it on Macs. Then the hardware manufacturers will only allow "trusted" developers via TPM.
Full ownership of all our computers must be norm again. It's fine if tech companies want to charge extra to sell walled gardens and market it as extra security. But they must sell computers and software that the buyer actually owns.
Both Apple and Google should just bite the fucking bullet and let people install whatever they want.
Apple, for their part, should have just buried the option to "sideload" deep in the settings. They could have put up a dialog, or maybe 5 dialogs in a row, each one scarier than the last, warning the user that if someone told them to do this, they are being scammed. They could have done it every time someone installs an app from outside the App Store. Make the user wait 10 seconds or a minute between each dialog. Put the option behind their passcode, or their Apple ID password. Void AppleCare if they do it, for all I care. They could have done any of this. Anyone actually concerned about their security would have avoided it anyway.
This is what they should have done. Now it looks like regulators are going force their hand. Why Google is doing this now, of all times, is beyond me. Have they read the news lately?
The regulation should be for phones, computers, and game consoles too.
I know this isn't an unpopular opinion... whatever. I gotta vent somewhere.
It is time to get the government to recognise mobile phones as being full fledged computers and which require the same consumer protections. Just because you are carrying it around all the time doesn't make it any less a computer.
Why, oh why, is there not a smartphone – or even a similar form-factor device without the ability to phone – that lets its user run anything they want (say, a normal Linux distro)? And then you emulate Android whenever you need something that only runs on that?
Hell, I don't care if it's a generation or two behind smartphones. I don't understand why this doesn't exist when non-bleeding-edge hardware has become so mind-bogglingly cheap!
I'm pretty sure that this combined with the announcement that in the newer pixel you will only get 200 charges before it starts to decrease the utility of your battery, and only 1,000 charges are guaranteed. So now they've got a platform where you can't install the apps you want and it has a definite end of life. Sounds like they don't even want to be in the handset business.
53 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 59.5 ms ] threadYou could install a free os on the phone instead and own the whole thing.
This was the case long before Apple, and started at the carrier telco's. Apple was the one who wrestled the control of the app store from the telco's, who were even worse!
Myself and a buddy built cool fun a bartender app (recipes for alcohol drinks) for the Danger Hiptop. It was rejected by the telco (t-mobile) because they were afraid of lawsuits due to the 21+ nature of the app. We never really got a formal rejection notice, they just stopped responding to us. It was also one of those things where you had to build the app first, submit it (to Danger, who then presented it to the telco), take the risk on everything yourself, and then get silently rejected. What a mess.
The modern mobile ecosystem is selling games consoles when the nerds want mobile Unix workstations.
However, the crusade against the word and concept of "sideloading" is really weird. Yeah, installing from the repo is normal, and all the windows-land "download an .exe/.msi to invoke an installer" ways that then may or may not update the app are unusual and apart from an ordered process of system management.
The proper alternative to Google Play is F-Droid, not downloading/baking .apks.
Full ownership of all our computers must be norm again. It's fine if tech companies want to charge extra to sell walled gardens and market it as extra security. But they must sell computers and software that the buyer actually owns.
Apple, for their part, should have just buried the option to "sideload" deep in the settings. They could have put up a dialog, or maybe 5 dialogs in a row, each one scarier than the last, warning the user that if someone told them to do this, they are being scammed. They could have done it every time someone installs an app from outside the App Store. Make the user wait 10 seconds or a minute between each dialog. Put the option behind their passcode, or their Apple ID password. Void AppleCare if they do it, for all I care. They could have done any of this. Anyone actually concerned about their security would have avoided it anyway.
This is what they should have done. Now it looks like regulators are going force their hand. Why Google is doing this now, of all times, is beyond me. Have they read the news lately?
The regulation should be for phones, computers, and game consoles too.
I know this isn't an unpopular opinion... whatever. I gotta vent somewhere.
Hell, I don't care if it's a generation or two behind smartphones. I don't understand why this doesn't exist when non-bleeding-edge hardware has become so mind-bogglingly cheap!
What am I missing?