In a way I hope this gives more opportunities to PWAs or at least websites that consider the use case of getting "installed" (at least added to home screen).

It's a far cry from native apps and it comes with its own issues. But in my case, the vast majority of apps I use regularly have a competent mobile web interface.

This is of course limited by what the OS will allow as we see with Apple's purposefully poor support for them and Google would likely follow suit. Maybe alternative browsers could offer what's missing.

Maybe there'll be more power behind a Linux distro for Android that puts browser apps and self installs first?

People have a natural desire for ownership in some form, I'm sure we'll find a way. But things do look bleak right now.

The canary in the coal mine is that tomorrow Windows or macOS could do the same with PCs.

I wonder if a "parent lock" type of measure but for external installs could work, basically allowing a user to disable the external installations (and other things) unless you enter a custom code.

For those of us who know enough there is no need to enable it.

For those that are not as technological (like elders), a familiar/friend can enable it and no matter what they try, they can't "harm" the device without asking you first.

The only ones not getting any benefit are non technological people without technological contacts, but even in those cases I'm sure shops would gladly provide that support (like the usual "setup support)

These phones should offer 3 environments: The one which Google likes, where Banking apps and Wallets reside and only verified apps can be installed into, then the normal one, where our all crappy apps run, like weather, whatsapp, and an unrestricted one, where permissions aren't required at all. Though it should be hard to install an app in the unrestricted environment, like force the use of adb for the initial install. Unrestricted should hot have access to anything running in the secure environment.

I can see a fracturing of digital convergence in my future. Corporate controlled communication device in one pocket and an open source SBC in the other. I'm not particularly into the privacy/security stuff. I just think it has all gone too far I'm not sure the value is there anymore as we all get squeezed for profits. I don't need or want most of the shit that companies are pushing. The services I used to find useful like really good search have been destroyed.

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!

What am I missing?

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.

You don't actually own your phone if ownership implies control over your property. You just get to pay for it. This was always the goal of our corporate/government "partnership" AKA fascism.

Can't wait for Windows 12 to have a mandatory S-Mode and a Microsoft account tied to your PII, for your protection. No anonymous writer can publish the 21st Century equivalent of the Federalist Papers and our tyranny is safe.

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.