'Keep Android Open' movement fights back against Google sideloading restrictions Starting next year, Google plans to require all apps installed on certified Android devices, including sideloading, to come from developers it has verified. Many Android developers see the move as a power grab and have started a movement to "Keep Android Open." The petition, organized by software developer Marc Prud'hommeaux, …
Ah yes, this is the same Google that proclaims "no monopoly here!" because Android is free and open and people can install apps from anywhere, not just from us, right?! Google is both the home and away team, and referee, in its great game to take control of almost the entire web and all of its on-ramps.
My personal issue is Google is subject to US prohibitions of which China is the prime target.
That is why Huawei apps are banned in their store and, if you have the well regarded GT watches you have to sideload the enabling app. Will US laws preclude Google from verifying the Huawei store and apps?
If it does then it junks every watch. And should that be a decision made by the laws of a foreign ie unelected and unaccountable administration?
No, no & no.
I made the mistake of accepting Android updates on my 2014 Moto G, and they made the phone utterly unusable. The phone technically still works (until October 31st, when Canada discontinues the 3G network), and of course Google and Motorola both say it's obsolete and not supported. But if I hadn't upgraded it, I'd still be using it.
I am still using my 2017 Samsung S8. With the exception of security updates (which stopped years ago [1]), I don't update any of the Google or Samsung apps, because I don't use any of the Google or Samsung apps, with everything coming from F-Droid. If this is the path Google is taking, there's no way I'm getting a "certified" Android device that only allows Google-verified developers. I'll buy a used S8/S9/S10 and flash the ROM to LineageOS or the like.
If I wanted to be in a walled garden, I'd by an iPhone.
[1] Yes, I understand the security implications. My phone has a Gmail account which is only for the phone. I use the phone for phone calls, SMS, camera, offline music playback, GPS, and Dashcam. If someone breaks in, at worst they'd get my SMS messages, my phone contacts, and mp3 and FLAC playlists. There are no financial apps or anything like that. If something is even remotely confidential or private, I don't put it on the phone.
Yeah. I've got an old Moto G which I installed a lineage OS on some years ago. Although it was a bit of a faff, it wasn't too hard. However, there hasn't been a current android build for a Moto G for a while (afaik), so you'll have to settle for something older (but which will still be new, mine is an Android 10 rom from 2021).
Really? I didn't see any Moto G ports when I looked, or maybe there were none for the specific version of the phone I have. I'm in Canada; sometimes we get European versions of a phone, sometimes we get American versions.
There's been more than a few videos where the presenter of a how-to video will say at step 3 or step 4 that "if you have the Canadian version of the phone, you're out of luck because the bootloader is locked" or something similar.
I'll take another look.
iPhone's are not a walled garden - those are a prison - alas "people" see how shiny the bars are and see the shiny chrome-hue plant drawings and figure it must be a really nice garden.
Android was only slightly less of a prison than iOS, as although "generously" google previously made the locked gate open with any key (it doesn't open without a key and working out how to resign an apk is a real pain in the neck that takes hours) - but soon the gate is only going to open with their key, resulting in Android being more or less the same prison as Android.
As it seems that LineageOS uses their own SDK's, google can't legally stop them from continuing to support installing, but google will soon come up with many technical methods of doing so.
The real solution is to stop being conned by demon rectangles and get a GNUbooted GNU/Phone.
That's exactly the point.
I can almost guarantee that the C-suite pitch for Android presented a new twist on the classic embrace and extend.
Powerpoint says:
Handset Industry needs iOS competitor so that they and Carriers have leverage (strikethrough font)
Android will be Google's iOS to engage users (strikethrough font)
Android will own and control the entire User interaction from Device to Connectivity to Data to Apps (Larger, bold font. Possibly comic-sans to project friendliness)
(embeded file man-held-by-short-and-curlies.gif )
Can you imagine if instead of Google & Android it was Microsoft announcing a similar thing about installing programs outside of the Windows store would require a $25 developer registration? Their would be boycott Microsoft protests outside of Redmond by now, yet Google seem to be getting away with little coverage about this outside of the tech news sphere.
I don't actively develop anything for Android, although I have the toolset installed 'just in case' any of the back burner projects turns into more than 'the big button that does nothing'.
The situation is getting bad enough in the windows world, where certain virus killers chime in with an alert every single time I so much as compile my code. Many are working on the basis that if they have not seen a particular executable before, it is dangerous by default. Avast, I was looking at you, but now I'm ignoring you completely since you were bought out, and simply make the statement, 'If you're using Avast, you're on your own...'. I'm not alone there, as even Sage warn users not to let Avast anywhere near their accounts software.
The logical extension to this is that sooner or later Microsoft will require digitally signed code and a walled garden such as the Microsoft store before you can so much as write HelloWorld.exe without registering with the vendor and locking yourself into their development toolchain.
So, I'll stick to the unix world, and cygwin GCC on windows for those times I really have to shift into that universe. If it were not for the likes of the Raspberry Pi, there would be no way to raise the next generation of tinkerers, hobbyists and eventually professional coders.
(Honestly, I'm feeling a bit icky having capitalised the H and W in HelloWorld; my beard would be grey if I hadn't shaved...)
You know Microsoft isn't responsible for third-party antimalware software's excessive caution, right? Unless Defender is also doing it*, that's not Microsoft. It doesn't help if you blame the companies who are not doing this, and Microsoft has had plenty of opportunities they haven't taken. When they announce harmful changes, we should all take them to task for that, but when they haven't, jumping to the conclusion that they'll definitely do what they have shown no interest in doing but plenty of others, hence the article, have announced in no uncertain terms that they will be doing is misplaced priorities at best.
* And if Defender is doing it, then you have a problem somewhere, because it doesn't do it to anyone else.
Hope is all it will be ... 'AI' driving any coding is just going to prove how BAD 'AI' really is !!!
'AI' is rapidly approaching a massive failure ... just to prove 'you cannot con all of the people all of the time'.
I just hope that my pension is not invested in 'AI' and the associated Behemoths !!!
As for the move towards a more locked down 'garden' for Android, it was always on the cards.
Ditto for MS, they have all seen how well Apples approach maintains the flow of their profits.
They are going to move in that direction to see if they can get some of their 'lost' profits.
Ultimately MS will move to a walled garden that is a subscription for your OS and a defined set of hardware they will support.
(The hardware manufacturers will be certified, for a fee, as 'MS OS Compatible' for another money stream ...)
:)
> Prud'hommeaux proposes the term "direct installing," in case you need to make a distinction between obtaining software the old-fashioned way versus going through a rent-seeking intermediary marketplace like the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store.
Nicely put. Hopefully it will count as "fair use" if the above starts appearing as a response to online posts that are using "sideloading", especially any that do so as a deterrent when anything like F-Droid is suggested.
F-droid's build system entirely depends on the proprietary google SDK, which is under a proprietary license; https://f-droid.org/docs/Installing_the_Server_and_Repo_Tools/#proprietary-non-free-libraries
There are rebuilds that take the alleged source code and compile a free SDK, but F-droid doesn't use those, as inconveniently applications programmed against the proprietary SDK don't compile without modifications - so f-droid uses the proprietary google SDK instead - unfortunately the result is that all software available for download on f-droid is most likely proprietary.
https://developer.android.com/studio/terms
"3.2 You may not use this SDK to develop applications for other platforms (including non-compatible implementations of Android) or to develop another SDK."
"3.4 You may not use the SDK for any purpose not expressly permitted by the License Agreement. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK."
https://opensource.org/osd
"3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."
"6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."
As always, it seems that tolerating proprietary is going to kill another project yet again - as the proprietary licenses forbids F-droid from developing or possibly even working with modified versions of Android that are "incompatibility" modified to allow unshackled installing (sideloading is propaganda - there is nothing sideways about the user installing software that want to install).
If I want to manually install my own app choice outside of the walled garden of the app store(s), then it's my phone and my choice and Google can fuck right off.
[side note: if they are planning on enforcing this, can we assume that Google will accept full liability for malware that gets through?]
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
