Top
Best
New

Posted by LorenDB 1 day ago

Keep Android Open(keepandroidopen.org)
2269 points | 704 commentspage 3
Artoooooor 1 day ago|
Does it also mean that developers in "bad" countries will not be able to create installable Android apps?
okanat 14 hours ago|
yes.
drooopy 1 day ago||
I wonder if it's possible for a consortium led by major phone manufacturers to "libreoffice" Android away from Google's control.

Android (to a lesser extend iOS) has become deeply embedded in the infrastructure of modern society. It is essentially a public utility and should be managed as such.

0x073 1 day ago|
Major phone manufacturers would break androids neck. (E.g.Samsung)
wosined 1 day ago||
> please big corpo overlord do not do what is most profitable for you, pretty pretty please please
IamDaedalus 1 day ago||
I've only been interested in Android phones particularly Pixels because I can just flash another OS and do whatever but if Google goes through with this I might consider iphones this time
rzerowan 1 day ago||
I think the main ask should not be limited to android/ios but similarly to the rules and regs of previous decades around agressive interop and standardisation. Asks for piecemeal carveouts whenever a monopoliist tightens the noose allows the can to be kicked downn the road when the outrage has subsided and allows for entrenchment of the status quo by stealth. Chipping away until the stated goal is reached. Just like the car/gas monopolies were not alowed to get away with locking users into their own cartels - similar efforts should (but probably wont) be taken to preserve the ability of users to do with their devices as they see fit.
dreamcompiler 1 day ago||
Google got a minor slap on the wrist for their last antitrust case so now they know they're invincible and can get away with anything.
fungi 1 day ago||
never been a better time to donate to postmarket os, mobian or friends.
VikingCoder 1 day ago||
Please, just give users the ability to say whether they want this "extra safety" control on. (If it even is extra safety, but whatever.)

If they don't, they can sideload, and use F-Droid, and etc.

And then we can debate whether it should be default on, or default off, and how hard it should be to turn off.

zzo38computer 11 hours ago|
I agree, but it is not good enough. They should also need to actually check for malware and other problems with their own app store, in addition to allowing loading your own unverified (or that you verify yourself in a different way) software if you want to do too (perhaps with the option to configure this, as you mentioned).

(I do not use iPhone nor Android and I won't, even if they do fix these problems.)

yu3zhou4 1 day ago||
Are there any alternative mobile OSes actively developed? I remember Ubuntu Touch was the thing and something from Firefox, but not sure if they are continued?
baobun 1 day ago||
Ubuntu Touch is still a thing.

We also have PostmarketOS (alpine base) and Mobian (debian base) as frontrunners. Supposedly Arch Linux for ARM and openSUSE Tumbleweed are also used by some on mobile.

dguest 1 day ago|||
There's HarmonyOS [1], which is developed by Huawei, and which has a similar mix of open (OpenHarmony) and proprietary components. I haven't used it, but it's supported by quite a few phones and sort of surprised it wasn't mentioned anywhere on this thread.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarmonyOS

fsflover 1 day ago||
https://mobian.org
morshu9001 1 day ago|
You can't even develop without the paid dev account? I thought it'd just be for distribution. Like, you can build and run whatever you want on an iPhone without a paid account.
lern_too_spel 1 day ago|
You can develop and install via adb, but you can't just tell the package manager to install an APK you downloaded on your phone. Maybe attestation makes sense to allow Amazon App Store or Epic Games Store to be installed without a warning and to allow companies like Spotify to distribute their apps themselves from their websites without using Google Play Store and without a warning. What's wrong is preventing people from installing apps that haven't been attested by Google straight from their phone, even with a warning.
morshu9001 1 day ago||
I get that requiring attestation for downloaded apps is wrong too, it's just this website says "it will no longer be possible to develop apps for the Android platform without first registering centrally with Google" which seems incorrect from what you're saying.

Edit: Oh I get it, "develop for the platform" means develop and distribute. Maybe it's just me, but seems like an important difference.

munchlax 1 day ago||
I think it is and it doesn't just end there. It's develop and distribute binaries.

Everyone is still free to develop and distribute source code.

More comments...