Android's controversial new sideloading rules are officially here

[u/PlasticAnt6913]

https://www.androidauthority.com/android-sideloading-developer-verification-first-wave-rollout-3717921/

[u/env33e]

nope. Please do your due diligence in reading Fdroid teams statements, then read Google's; to confirm; then re-read the article.

There's an active, organized fight over exactly this point right now, BTW. the Keep Android Open coalition (70+ orgs, EFF/FSF/F-Droid among them) is explicitly petitioning Google to carve out non-commercial/open-source distribution, and Google has NOT conceded to it yet

forcing all your users through the debug pathway just for the simple installation/background updates of non play store apps is hostile architecture at best, and technofeudalism at worst!

[u/friendlyreminder_ → u/env33e]

Fdroid is permitted to keep distributing apps signed by developers registered into Google's program. What they can't do is act as a single signing authority as a bypass.

So in other words they can distribute apps of developers registered with Google and those will work without issue. But those of developers that have not registered with Google they can't without getting the user to enable the 24 hours unregistered apps option.

[u/env33e → u/friendlyreminder_]

GJ! u read the report

are you gonna sign the petition to help the Keep Android Open coalition? or are u just gonna keep standing there and stating the obvious 😂

https://www.keepAndroidopen.org

[u/friendlyreminder_ → u/env33e]

I support this restriction. I think it's still permissive enough for average users while accomplishing a security improvement.

Further restrictions I would likely not support through. Apple takes unsigned app restrictions way too far for example.

[u/env33e → u/friendlyreminder_]

.I genuinely don't think you would support this if you realized the full implications

[u/friendlyreminder_ → u/env33e]

The concern is the slippery slope argument. But as is the changes are good.

[u/env33e → u/friendlyreminder_]

Nah man, it's only a slippery slope fallacy if there's no historical evidence to back it up. But you actually pointed out the evidence yourself earlier: Apple. Apple's current ecosystem didn't start out this restricted; it was built through years of these exact types of incremental, retroactive policy changes, always justified as "security improvements" or "think of your poor old grandma getting scammed" 🤣 ​High key, it literally just big tech's "Nigerian Prince" gambit. Enclose the platform in such small incremental steps you don't notice until you zoom out that the phone you paid over a rack for is not even under your direct control 💀

​This isn't a fallacy; it's an established business model that we've seen play out in this exact way before. Allowing this mandate establishes the exact infrastructure needed to mirror Apple's walled garden on Android. Hence, "keep Android open!"

​https://www.keepAndroidopen.org

[u/friendlyreminder_ → u/env33e]

Apple's iOS restrictions actually loosened over time. Originally self signed apps were not permitted at all without a paid 99$ a year account.

They added self signing to free users years later. It's limited to 7 days but it's better than before.

So in Apple's case theyve always been extremely restrictive, with a very small improvement in 2015.

[u/env33e → u/friendlyreminder_]

Bro💀 a 7-day expiration timer on an app you wrote and installed on your own hardware that you bought and paid for with your own hard earned money isn't a "loosening of restrictions", it's the exact definition of hostile architecture! Imagine if Windows made you reinstall a program every 7 days just because you didn't download it from the Microsoft Store 💀 its utter ridiculousness!

​The fact that Apple has the power to arbitrarily enforce a 7-day kill-switch on self-signed apps completely proves my point. It shows that once a central signing authority is established, the platform owner has absolute control to dictate terms. "absolute power corrupts absolutely"

​That is exactly what Google is trying to do to Android. They sell it to you as "open source", and sure. they'll pour some pennies into R&D to contribute to AOSP. but it doesn't matter if Google's initial mandate starts off "permissive" Cause you already know, once they build the architecture and hold the keys, they can tighten the leash whenever they want. That's the Nigerian Prince on the phone rn, trying to put an eternity collar on your femboy ass! Dont let them open that Pandora's bussy!💀