Friendica Social Network

emotional_soup_88 via Privacy

1 week ago • •

emotional_soup_88
1 week ago • •

Possible to avoid Google's future open source ban on Android devices?

If I am already using a rooted but proprietary smartphone (Samsung Galaxy S23), downloading my apps from other sources than Google Play, how would Google be able to control what I do with it? If necessary, I could just stay on my current OS build as well. All in all, while politically and philosophically, Google's new policy is bad, I don't feel threatened by it with my current understand of the situation and technology...

Google cracks down! APKs, ROMs, and Emulators banned — is Android freedom over?

Google is implementing a significant policy shift, banning unverified APKs, ROMs, and certain emulators on certified Android devices starting in 2026.

^{Muskan Singh (Economic Times)}

#privacy

in reply to emotional_soup_88

circuscritic

in reply to emotional_soup_88 • 1 week ago • •

They reversed course, so it's not an immediate issue.

But to answer your question, they would have provided an OS update to only allows app installations from verified developers, no matter the source.

To get verified developers have to submit identification to Google and go through a Google process.

So it wouldn't matter if the install source was a third-party repo, or Google Play, the system would not have installed any applications not signed by a Google authorized certificate.

That becomes very problematic because it gives Google the ability to restrict applications outside of the Google Play Store ecosystem.

They were copying Apple's playbook from the EU wherein Apple was legally mandated to allow third-party app stores, and in response Apple required all apps to be signed by an Apple verified developer certificate, no matter the repo.

And wouldn't you know it, Apple either revoked or would not provide certificates to developers of apps Apple didn't like, such as BitTorrent clients.

This entry was edited (1 week ago)

in reply to circuscritic

INeedMana

in reply to circuscritic • 1 week ago • •

They reversed course, so it’s not an immediate issue.

I'm not convinced yet

Some article as I can't find my Xitter password to see the source

designed an "advanced flow" for installing unverified apps. This new system is specifically intended for developers and power users who have a higher risk tolerance and want the ability to download unverified apps.
It is not a casual toggle. The advanced flow is built to resist exploitation. The company emphasizes that the flow is designed to resist coercion, ensuring users aren't tricked into bypassing safety checks under pressure from scammers. Social engineering often walks victims through dismissing every warning on screen, so Google is adding friction that fights back.

That can very well mean we'll be compiling everything by hand and sending it via USB app by app

Google Keeps Android Sideloading for Power Users in 2026

Reviewed by: Jame Jimenez When you first heard Google was planning to crack down on Android's sideloading capabilities, you might have felt that familiar...

^{Gadget Hacks}

like this

in reply to INeedMana

circuscritic

in reply to INeedMana • 1 week ago • •

I don't necessarily disagree, but the fact they walked back the original policy because it was so unpopular leads me to believe they are trying to save face by implementing a PITA way of enabling unknown sources, such as through ADB.

The reason why I suspect that is because even with the original policy change, they were still going to allow unsigned apps to be installed via ADB.

But I guess we'll just have to wait and find out.

in reply to circuscritic

INeedMana

in reply to circuscritic • 1 week ago • •

I think they got afraid such strict policy would put wind in the sails of Linux Phone initiatives

But I might be jaded

in reply to INeedMana

WhyJiffie

in reply to INeedMana • 1 week ago • •

I don't think so, shareholder driven companies don't think long term

in reply to circuscritic

bl4kers

in reply to circuscritic • 1 week ago • •

I'd argue it's already a small minority of users. Any change is very likely to be negative

in reply to INeedMana

WhyJiffie

in reply to INeedMana • 1 week ago • •

That can very well mean we'll be compiling everything by hand and sending it via USB app by app

I think USB/ADB installation would have been allowed in their plans even before they reversed course

in reply to circuscritic

emotional_soup_88

in reply to circuscritic • 1 week ago • •

Right, then I'll just stay on my current build, being careful not to flash an OS update 😈

But in all seriousness, couldn't one manage without OS updates - relying on only proper cyber hygiene and opsec - until a more viable solution comes up? 🤔

in reply to emotional_soup_88

Sir_Kevin

in reply to emotional_soup_88 • 1 week ago • •

couldn't one manage without OS updates - relying on only proper cyber hygiene and opsec - until a more viable solution comes up?

That's been my plan. I just replaced all my android devices with new (to me) devices which are all unlocked, flashed/degoogled and rooted.

I should be good for 5+ years. Hopefully by then the community has come up with a solution to whatever bullshit google has done.

in reply to emotional_soup_88

INeedMana

in reply to emotional_soup_88 • 1 week ago • •

From what has been explained to me in some other posts, the issue is that most probably this will land on AOSP level from which all de-Googled androids fork. And with Linux phones not quite ready yet (I'm observing liberux.net/ though) that leaves us at their mercy

Liberux – Privacy · Security · Freedom

^liberux.net

in reply to INeedMana

Special Wall

in reply to INeedMana • 1 week ago • •

De-Googled forks of Android would have just reversed that limitation

in reply to Special Wall

INeedMana

in reply to Special Wall • 1 week ago • •

I'm guessing that maintaining such forks would be prohibitive. Especially since they do have resources to play cat and mice

But I don't really know much about Android code, I'm just relying what I've heard

in reply to Special Wall

Mark with a Z

in reply to Special Wall • 1 week ago • •

Reversing malicious changes is an extra burden. Google has been slowly making everything worse for years and the forks haven't been able to do much about it.

in reply to INeedMana

emotional_soup_88

in reply to INeedMana • 1 week ago • •

LOL AdAway blocked liberux.net wtf😂 but thanks! The specs are surprisingly good too! :O

in reply to INeedMana

MasterBlaster

in reply to INeedMana • 1 week ago • •

Looks nice, but I tried this sort of thing with the FXTec Pro, and never received it. After 4 years, they announced the last ones going out, and they apparently "lost" mine. Contacted them and their response was equivalent to a shrug. Next time I buy a product, it's going to be verifiably on sale publicly.

in reply to MasterBlaster

INeedMana

in reply to MasterBlaster • 1 week ago • •

It's not crowd-funded anymore mastodon.social/@Liberux/11561…

Liberux (@Liberux@mastodon.social)

Great News, Liberux Community! 🎉 1️⃣ The Liberux NEXX is moving forward with new self-funding. We listened to your feedback, and the NEXX will come with improvements. We maintain our #opensource commitment and #privacy focus.

^{Liberux (Mastodon)}