654
Android's new developer verification rollout begins, sideloading changes are next
(www.androidauthority.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
654 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
83725 readers
2348 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How is it even legal for a company to decide what you can or can't install in your own device?
The US supports monopolies as long as they have a backdoor. It was the same with Microsoft in the 90s.
Because anti-trust has not been enforced this century, with the exception of Lina Khan's work as the FCC director.
Companies have been pushing the boundaries further and further for decades, with almost no push back.
Legal is just whoever has the most resources.
For the same reason they can make you click agree to terms before you can do anything with the device.
Terms of service are unenforceable as nobody reads them.
A contract cannot be valid if one side has not read it. If one side cannot guarantee the other side has read it, it's their onus.
Also, clicking a button that says "I accept" isn't signing a contract. If it doesn't have your signature or a certified digital signature, it isn't a contract.
It's just an "I told you so" that allows them to kick you out, like the rules at the entrance of a restaurant. It doesn't give them the power to sue you or anything like that. It's just covering their asses with legalese excuses. Any legal practice that claims otherwise are just legal mercenaries for the wealthy.
The legal part doesn't matter, the important part is that if you don't click yes, they control the software and you can't install the third party software.
Ugghhhh, its THEIR OS you're using. Perfect example is Nintendo.
"If you want to replace Internet Explorer with Netscape Navigator, why not just use Solaris or OS/2 or something? It's THEIR OS you're using" didn't go over too well with the courts.
You mean the original NES which they tried in court to stop unlicensed carts and lost, right? Right?
Moreso now with Switch 2s getting bans for using 3rd party accessories/those not working outright since they lack some baked in h/w ID that Sw2 checks for online
I reckon that means it is not actually your own device.