This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
remember when people were actually excited about new android releases because they were weird and consumer friendly?
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.
I'm guessing what you're suggesting is that Google's proposal is the same as requiring all packages be signed and accompanied by an Extended Validation or Oragnisation Validation X.509 certificate.
While that would technically work, the problem with using the existing PKI is that it's still very expensive to get EV/OV certificates. And the most common of these certs (those for TLS purposes) will soon only last 47 days which is, to put it mildly, would be a pain in the ass to use for package-signing.
My project uses a free one from SignPath. They offer this for opensource projects and require a verifiable GitHub build process. It's not EV certs but it's good enough and free.
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.
It’ll sell like hot cakes.
Nope... lot of apps won't run.
Nobody is buying a phone without Google Play Certification.
Not to mention, some carriers like ATT have a weird whitelist thing.
Also, there might be compatibility issues with provisioning the SIM, since I just had an issue with LineageOS breaking data connection, but restoring factory rom fixes it, then I flash Lineage again and it broke again, so yeah... I expect similar issues with a "Non- Google Play Certified" device.
Biggest thing is: Netflix Widewine defaults back to L3 instead of L1 requited for HD stuff
Before you say "just pirate", most people don't know how to do that. Also somethings can't even get pirated since its so niche.
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!
I use GrapheneOS (Lineage OS and CyanogenMod before that) and I'm perfectly happy witn alternative software installation sources.
My entire job depends on such an app, so this is a bit of a relief.
This framing still sucks. Google is blocking apps THEY don't approve on YOUR phone.
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.
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.
so you're saying it is the wrong word, because most apks are downloaded from the internet on-device. That is not a local transfer
It is still the same installation method, directly installing the .apk file, from way back when the term for Android usage was defined. So, kinda, but also kinda not. Also, if you do use ADB to do the install from a PC, the command is "ADB sideload filename" which will do the transfer and installation to the memory directly. Then it truly is sideloading as defined.
Android doesn't use ROMs (Read-only Memory) any more either, because the filesystems are now writable. But Lineage etc are still called custom ROMs, because the end result hasn't changed.
@JohnEdwa @wide_eyed_stupid indeed. but it takes only a single incendiarily indignant but factually wrong mastodon post to force anyone left who's still reading wikipedia to clarify forever, because the OP is being parroted until hell freezes over.
@JohnEdwa @wide_eyed_stupid the correct take would be "i should be free to sideload software to my devices in any way i please".
@lritter @JohnEdwa @wide_eyed_stupid unfortunately the term has been anti-reclaimed by corpos for use to imply it’s outside the norm to have control over what runs on your own device
@zaire @wide_eyed_stupid @JohnEdwa it's our term. just like the sparkles emoji. they can't claim anything. it's all ours. they can go to hell.
@wide_eyed_stupid @Gsus4 “You will own nothing, and if you don’t like it you can talk to the security cyberdog that has you in its sights.”
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.
You know, it's very possible, because I've never actually read an entire EULA, I don't think.
@wide_eyed_stupid @arararagi I will never read the TOS and if it says I can’t use the machine I own as I see fit, they can shove the EULA and the DMCA it rode in on up their ass sideways.
"I have read and agree to the Terms" is the biggest lie on the web. Together, we can fix that.
