[ACCount37]

Yep, it's as bad as everyone expected it to be. "We aren't taking away sideloading, we're just going to fully control it now! No Google-unapproved code on user devices! For security reasons!"

Chrome isn't enough. We need Android to get clawed away from Google too.

[thewebguyd]

they should lose YouTube as well. They’ve used it as an anti-competitive weapon in the past.

In a healthy market, Chrome, Android, and YouTube would and should be their on entities.

[runting]

Not really though, as you can still install apps over adb without developer verification, same as always.

[estimator7292]

And by what mechanism can you prevent google from disabling adb? Or implementing a situation like iOS where sideloaded dev apps only last for a week and are signed with your personal developer key tied to your credit card?

There's nothing to stop them, and absolutely no reason to think they won't take away adb sideloading in the near future.

[runting]

Google have full control to do this on their Pixel devices by rolling out new firmware with further restrictions - though there is no evidence they plan to do so.

However other vendors that build upon AOSP, such as Samsung, can make their own decisions on this.

[mayama]

> However other vendors that build upon AOSP, such as Samsung, can make their own decisions on this.

Pure AOSP devices are only some chinese knockoffs without play store. If your device needs play store/device integrity verification, there are lots are requirements by goog that needs to be met. Goog can add new requirement to disable installing unverified apps from adb.

[estimator7292]

Sure, that's going really well for Graphene. What happens when AOSP is abandoned and google close-sources everything they can get away with? Do you expect users to start compiling years-old AOSP and rolling device trees themselves?

[hn92726819]

Do you see the direction they're heading? They're now making it so maybe .5% of android users know how to sideload. They're clearly chipping away at it, even though they might not be making all the changes at once.

[runting]

What fraction of users do you think have a legitimate need to sideload apps on Android? I would imagine it's much less than 0.5%. Developers and technically-minded power users must be a tiny minority amongst Android users given that it has an install base in the billions.

[hn92726819]

Right now, not many. My point is that they aren't flipping a giant switch from an open platform to a closed platform. They're boiling the frog -- slowly removing features until all choice is gone.

A few more years in this direction and Android can be as locked down as iPhone before Apple was forced to allow sideloading

[Jotalea]

I mean, piracy is a common thing on Android devices, at least here in Latin/South America.

[chistev]

Give them an inch...

[oflebbe]

You can sideload apps in ios too, but you may not run it.

[runting]

On Android you can both install and run apps over adb. The linked article explains:

> Participating in developer verification will not affect your experience in Android Studio, the official IDE for Android app development. You will continue to be able to build and run an app even if your identity is not verified. Android Studio is unaffected because deployments performed with adb, which Android Studio uses behind the scenes to push builds to devices, is unaffected. You can continue to develop, debug, and test your app locally by deploying to both emulators and physical devices, just as you do now.

[hulitu]

> you can still install apps over adb

and they will be removed by play protect.

[m-p-3]

Which is a clear roadblock for third-party appstores adoption, notably F-Droid which compiles and signs the apps it distributes.

What if F-Droid distributes an app Google or its US overlords deems dangerous or illegal? Will they block and/or revoke that signature, thus taking down F-Droid in its entirety?

[interloxia]

Not really though. That's not how apps are usually installed on Android outside of Google's control.

[whatevaa]

Not for long.