[askonomm]

So I buy a device ... with my own money ... which I supposedly then own, but then I need to ask some corporation permission to use it, and it treats me like a toddler by giving me a 24 hour wait period for the ability to install applications on that device? I'd understand if this "feature" was a part of Parental Controls, but I'm not a child, so this is insulting. I see Google saw how Microsoft likes to spit on its users and wanted a piece of that action. How is this legal?

[jzs]

I never bought into the apple ecosystem for the exact reason of not being able to feel ownership over my own device.

However i also understand the challenges google has. They/vendors are selling consumer devices with a consumer OS on it. Not everybody is tech savvy and a fair bit of people are too easy to trick into installing things.

An alternative could be to offer two versions(perhaps on phone activation). A business like version where a business(and people on HN) get full access. MDM and all. And average Joe mamas version that comes with more guard rails activated.

I can personally live with that 24 hour wait once, if it helps protect the average people from scammers etc.

[pllbnk]

> Not everybody is tech savvy and a fair bit of people are too easy to trick into installing things.

Almost nobody is tech savvy to understand how LLMs work and how subtly and convincingly they present incorrect facts, yet they are free to use by everyone.

Here, we are talking about the same company providing both of these services - an OS where they are supposedly trying to protect their users, and LLMs where no protections are needed (just censorship).

[phil9909]

I'm just not buying their explanation, that's just an excuse. Why? Well my wifes grandmother (80ish woman living alone) showed us something on her phone a few months ago: Big red flashing text that her phone was somehow infected and she urgently needs to call x and do y. Now how did this scam get full screen access to her phone? She installed a card game app from the Google Play Store, which showed this scam as an ad. And the little logo in the bottom gave away one more detail: The ad was delivered via Google. IMHO Google just wants to ensure Android stays under their control and they can make lots of money with it. They don't care if average Joe gets scamed (they even get a cut) and the measures they pretend to protect average Joe just don't work.

P.S.: Some speciation from my side: That ad was probably even targeted to less techsavy people power by Google.

[askonomm]

I can understand that point, but I'd much rather vote for increased education than increased babysitting. Increased education would affect those that need it whereas increased babysitting affects everyone, including those who do not need it, and living in a society where everybody assumes you're a toddler because some people are easily gullible and ignorant is just horrible.

[t0bia_s]

Just look how state works with solving all kind of problems with legislative regulations that, in the end, remove freedom of choice peace by peace. Neither you give responsibility to individuals to learn even from mistakes or take all of it. Of course because of our "safety".

[seanmcdirmid]

You can always buy a Chinese android phone without a Gstack. Then uhm, well, you will have lots of freedom at least without having to wait 24 hours first.

[em-bee]

yes, but we are talking about educating a billion people in developing countries. it's not just some people there, but the majority of the population. it will take a whole generation at least to fix that.

[L-four]

This post is propaganda. You don't own the phone. The term "buy" is defined as "revocable anytime lease".

[pas]

hardware is yours, you can put a different OS on it, this OS comes with these user safety features

[globular-toast]

You are essentially a child to them. A child is just someone who has not yet developed the power to survive in a world full of adults. This is why parents guard and protect children, and when that fails society steps in to do it instead.

You are just a child to them. Not powerful enough to stick up for yourself. Ripe for abuse. The difference is society has decided not to step in to protect you from your abusive parents.

[t0bia_s]

Parenting without love makes tyranny.

[em-bee]

this is not about protecting children with parental controls but about protecting illiterate adults in developing countries who are being exploited by unscrupulous scammers.

yes, it's bad, and i don't like it either, but this is preferable over only allowing verified apps.

[djmips]

It's a one time 24 hour wait.

[askonomm]

This sort of washing away fundamental problems with blanket statements like "oh it's just X, not a big deal", which then always keep adding up to a pretty big deal, is not helpful. Perhaps ignorance is the path to happiness for you, but not everybody wants to bend over to lords at megacorps.

[djmips]

I'm just stating a fact since the linked article wasn't correct at the time of my comment and it seemed like some people assumed it was every time.

[chistev]

Give them an inch...

[soganess]

And I'm 100% sure they will stop there... Yup! No evidence to believe the contrary.

[mbirth]

“They only want your firstborn. You can make more kids."

[xyzzy123]

This will not be a popular comment, but...

A 24 hour wait like this can sometimes be the result of a security team not knowing what else to do. There are all sorts of weird threat models when you think hard about how devices are used, like partners who have legit access to a phone at a certain point in time.

[askonomm]

What's next? I buy a car which I cannot drive in certain locations unless I ask for permission and wait 24h? Daddy Car Dealership please let me drive in this location, pretty please?

[pas]

drones are already coming with mandatory GPS-based flight restrictions

cars are a funny example (but I know, car analogies are also mandatory!), because cars and driving is a very complex and regulated system, what you can drive, where, license, registration, car & road safety standards, where to park, when, how much to pay, etc...

[em-bee]

this is the right answer. google is simply at a loss. they are not doing this to gain control, they are doing this because developing countries are demanding it. and those developing countries are the future markets with a lot of growth potential. so from google perspective they can't afford to ignore those markets, but also from a development perspective it would be unfair to deny those people access to modern technology just because they lack the education to avoid being scammed.

[Markoff]

you buy your hardware, you don't buy the software, you buy the license to use the software according license terms

[b00ty4breakfast]

If the hardware wasn't locked down on so many devices, this wouldn't be an issue because people could choose to use a different OS.

[askonomm]

Right so by this logic, if I buy an electric car, and they decide to not let me drive on dirt-roads because the software won't allow me to and I need to ask special permission and wait 24h to be able to, that's also totally fine then, right? Do you not see the ridiculousness of this premise?

[Markoff]

if you have problem with this vote with your wallet and don't support HW companies doing this or talk to your MEP or other representative to change the current legislation, I'm just telling what's the current status quo, don't kill the messenger

[gabordemooij]

fine, but can you buy alternatives that run your software then?

[Markoff]

yes, you can, if you think running something else other than Android/iOS