[dethos]

To be sincere, they were never truly ours. A proof of that is they were able to come up with this, and you don't have a way to reject it.

What we actually need are (open) alternatives, not to double down on Google's ecosystem and Google-controlled OS. We need to control the device we bought and be able to run whatever we wish on it. Just like we do on PCs.

[WhyNotHugo]

https://postmarketos.org is working on developing a Linux distribution for mobile devices (including smartphones), aligned with these goals: free open source software, empowering users to control their own devices.

I won't deny that a lot of application support still needs more work. But this is definitely moving in the right direction.

[at-fates-hands]

Is it time to bring back the Windows phone?

I keed I keed!

But unfortunately there really isn't a great alternative. I painfully attempted to use Ubuntu Touch and its always the same thing. The lack of available apps, the lack of app development in general for the platform was pretty eye opening. Add in having it only run on really old devices isn't much help either. Its promising, but a long ways off even from some of the non-standard roms I've used like Evolution X which is a Lineage fork.

If this really does cripple a lot of the known custom roms out there without any solid alternatives other than Graphene? It could really be a huge turning point.

[cestith]

I wouldn’t mind a 64-bit build of Symbian or WebOS on my phone, actually. Or, hell, Plan 9.

[a_victorp]

We need a Wine-like compatibility layer for android alternatives

[kzhe]

doesn't waydroid already do this? is that how sailfish does it?

[seba_dos1]

Yes, I have been able to run Android applications within Waydroid on my phone for years now (as long as they don't require attestation). But that's not how Sailfish does it, they have their own proprietary implementation.

[unyttigfjelltol]

Security is essential for an appliance like a smart phone. I fight the general purpose computing battle on my desktop with Linux, but on my phone I just need something that won’t be hacked.

[array_key_first]

I really don't understand this mentality at all. Freedom is about the ability to do more stuff, not the requirement to do more stuff. Meaning, everything you want to do with a locked down phone, you can do with an open one.

There's no, like, gun to your head saying you HAVE to side load apps. You can just... not... do that. If you think side loading is insecure. You can download 100% of your apps from the play store. In fact, that's what 95% of people do.

I mean, what's the threat model here? That you somehow forget your own belief about side loading being insecure and then accidently side load an app? Does that even seem possible?

I can kind of understand this argument for granny who doesn't know where she is. Kind of. But for you, it makes no sense. I mean really, think about what you're saying here about you as a computer user or even as a person.

[unyttigfjelltol]

Hey, I’ve side loaded and F-Droided and all that. But here’s the thing: I just need the phone to work, minimally spy on me, and not turn into some horrible malware sinkhole. Google and their OEM ecosystem lost my confidence on all three counts.

One thing I used to side load or F-Droid was a keyboard, to circumvent what I perceived as privacy violations. But my selection Year 0 got forked or disappeared by Year 2, idk when or why, and thats a glaring security or privacy risk that I don’t have time to monitor and figure.

I actually thought Google’s solution in the article was charming— toggle developer mode. If you’re in developer mode you know you’ve got something to monitor and mitigate. Smartphones just aren’t powerful enough to use for their own defense at a consumer level against professionalized hackers, and from a product positioning perspective Google’s move is completely defensible.

[left-struck]

Well people can be tricked into sideloading apps if it’s possible.

To be clear I’m totally on your side and I think that’s a ridiculous reason to not have an open system, but let’s not pretend it’s not a possibility because doing so harms our otherwise very solid argument

[array_key_first]

It is definitely a possibility, for granny like I pointed out. Not for this person, who is aware of the risk and does not want to side load apps.

Like I said, they would have to somehow forget their own beliefs. Doesn't seem likely to me.

[literalAardvark]

If you look at the workflows for these changes, you'll notice that some of them are actually there to prevent you from doing stuff under duress.

Like it or not, if one wants security some freedom will need to be moved elsewhere.

And since the market is heading that way, the only thing we can do is form an android sandbox SIG and maintain a fork for enthusiasts.

[cryptonym]

Let's not be naive by pretending improving user security is the main purpose of that move.

[literalAardvark]

May or may not be. It does significantly improve security.

[cryptonym]

I miss data to confirm any of this does significantly improve security.

Anecdata: I have yet to meet someone who have been targeted by unknowingly side-loading apps.

If they really want to improve security they can work on much more impactful changes. I know people having been scammed by ads proudly delivered by instagram and google. I read about malicious apps that somehow went through official store filtering.

[CivBase]

Great for you. But what about the rest of us?