Starts with scary warnings for unsigned apps (with a workaround), then they start imposing extra restrictions for unsigned apps, and then they make the SmartScreen workaround more difficult to enable (maybe it needs a registry edit), then they'll remove that workaround in certain markets/editions (maybe the Home version first). Finally they'll remove it everywhere.
How will it go? Where are people going to go? People who draw a hard line on this can’t go to iOS for more freedom. Linux phones aren’t ready for prime time. So what’s left? Going back to a flip phone that doesn’t even have the capability of running apps in the same class?
It could also make jailbreaking more commonplace, which on the Android side has died down in recent years because sideloading is enough for most users.
I don't think the average user feels like they are really missing anything, which makes it a hard sell.
I definitely fly less now, because I am tired of the Orwellian circus at the airports. I guess same mechanism will reduce my smartphone use
we need more OEM unlockable phones, though. GOS is looking at getting one made, I'm planning to throw money at them to make it happen.
And maybe a separate one to root while they still can be.
This isn't even going to be some sort of an ideological decision. It's simply the intelligent choice.
It's a step of questionable utility, and I suspect it comes from requirements of (not exactly freedom-loving) governments of Brazil, Malaysia, and Singapore, where the demand for registration will be enforced first. Maybe it will even remain geographically limited.
The article is very light on details. Crucially, it lacks any links to actual Google documents.
To meaningfully challenge it, developers need to agree to withheld supply like a cartel (illegal?) or union.
I think it’s probably close to the union scenario in an industry with a single employer, as there is that one too many relationship (all developers vs Google). Whereas a cartel is a few suppliers conspiring against all consumers.
I’m not sure developers would go to those lengths, and I’m not sure it would work either as the benefit is too high from defecting from such a coalition.
Yes, I've cherry picked from the minority of countries with near or over half iOS market share. But, they're all high GDP countries with a very valuable customer base. Apple and Google care about these markets, they don't care about global market share.
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/australia [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta... [3] https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united... [4] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/japan [5] https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/canada [6] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/denmark [7] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/switzerlan... [8] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/sweden
Yes, you can turn off smartscreen (for now) but opening random executables is getting harder and harder.
Apple will disagree and the first company doing worst than this, and is the world's first trillion dollars company.
Money talks.
Installer software signing certificates that will satisfy MS are prohibitively expensive for hobbyists (hundreds per year).
If fact, the reason why MS can charge for "nearly mandatory" executable signing is because it is not mandatory at all. If they really were forced to close loopholes, they would have made it free for everyone, — just like Let's Encrypt was made free of charge to establish mandatory encryption across the Web.
So yeah, its different and more aecure
Cutting through the excuses, this is just another step in converting the US from a democracy to a fascist dictatorship.
Want to write software?
Papers please.
The US considers airports “constitution free zones”
Corporations are reading the room and pulling out any hostile tactic they've kept in their back pocket waiting for an occasion like this.
This is only the beginning with digital IDs. It's absolutely going to get worse and all of human history is available as evidence to what occurs with unchecked power.
It looks like pattern there is that a some powerful guy or company just removes rights and freedoms we had by small pieces. Those small pieces are not worth to fight for, until frog is boiled alive.
This response is unreasonable. If I'm purchasing a piece of hardware, it's not outrageous that I want to be able to compile and run software on it without asking for permission. Suggesting that I instead create my own smartphone ecosystem is absurd.
These were also years in the real world.
>it’s the one you chose by giving up your autonomy.
You are advocating for giving up autonomy. The people you are replying to are advocating the opposite.
>Don’t like it? Don’t by the phone. Genz mentality-
Oblig OK Boomer. "Dont you dare complain about big corporation, just uh go without, or buy a dumb phone, or just run all your calls through some Cellular enabled raspberry pi" Why would you defend some massive corporation crushing freedom. Shouldnt you at least beg google for some money.
>You could force Droid to reverse policy by not using it, but you’ll bend the knee and whine because you need your TikTok.
Spoken like someone who has already bent the knee, and is somehow critically damaged by people discussing methods to avoid bending the knee.
And both companies don't do anything about it because they are loaded with money from those scams.
Give me a break, it's never been about security.
No it isn't. It's perfectly reasonable. It's my device, bought with my money, earned on my time. I didn't agree to a social contract. I bought a tool. And you're a fool if you think
>but it's the current year!
is an argument. This isn't happening because the technological cosmos demands it. It's happening because google is winding up for a monopolistic hold of the market. They seek to manipulate it for their private benefit at the expense of everyone else. If they actually push through with this, they will be broken up.
Code-signing certs used to be very expensive and annoying to obtain. The situation has improved a lot since the launch of Azure Trusted Signing, and now it's roughly on par with the cost and annoyance level of code-signing for Mac binaries.
My understanding of the article is that there is nothing that a user will be able to do to install your software.
> “developers [that we approve] will have the same freedom to distribute their apps directly to users through [installation] or to use any app store they prefer.”
So, less freedom.
This is absolutely unacceptable. That's like you having to submit your personal details to Microsoft in order to just run a program on Windows. Absolutely nuts and it will not go as they think it will.