The part in the flow where you select between allowing app installs for 7 days or forever is a glimpse into the future. That toggle shows the thought process that's going on at Google.
I can bet that a few versions down the line, the "Not recommended" option of allowing installs indefinitely will become so not recommended that they'll remove it outright. Then shrink the 7 day window to 3 days or less. Or only give users one allowed attempt at installing an app, after which it's another 24 hour waiting period for you. Then ask the user to verify themselves as a developer if they want to install whatever they want. Whatever helps them turn people away from alternatives and shrink the odds of someone dislodging their monopoly, they will do. Anything to drive people to Google Play only.
At this point I'm convinced that there's something deeply wrong with how our society treats technology.
Ruining Android for everyone to try to maybe help some rather technologically-hopeless groups of people is the wrong solution. It's unsustainable in the long run. Also, the last thing this world needs right now is even more centralization of power. Especially around yet another US company.
People who are unwilling to figure out the risks just should not use smartphones and the internet. They should not use internet banking. They should probably not have a bank account at all and just stick to cash. And the society should be able to accommodate such people — which is not that hard, really. Just roll back some of the so-called innovations that happened over the last 15 years. Whether someone uses technology, and how much they do, should be a choice, not a burden.
> People who are unwilling to figure out the risks just should not use smartphones and the internet.
Sounds great in theory, but just today I was reminded how impossible this is when walking back from lunch, I noticed all the parking meters covered with a hood, labelled with instructions on how to pay with the app.
This cuts both ways. Since smartphones are becoming such an essential necessity, we should neverever remove the possibility to adjust these devices for our own requirements
What do you mean by impossible in this case? Can't you just have the coin-operated parking meters back? Where I live, in EU, parking meters even take cards.
EDIT: I guess "just" is doing some heavy-lifting, so I won't argue this further, but "impossible" isn't the word I would use either. The city could revert this decision, definitely if enough people wanted them to (that's... I know, the hardest part). I just agree with the OP think we technically could go back to slightly less-digital society.
There are places in EU too where parking meters have disappeared and payments are only done through apps. And I am talking about public space in the street, not private parkings.
>Regina city council made the decision to remove the coin option at downtown meters as part of the budget deliberation process, said Faisal Kalim, the City of Regina's director of community standards.
Yes, I read the linked article. Yes, the city made this decision. The decision could be reverted. I understand that this is a type of thing the OP (top-comment in the thread) is wishing for.
I don't see the "impossible" in my understanding of the linked article.
Coin-operated meters means someone have to come around checking the meter, collect coins, check the parking tickets. One person can only cover so many devices per day.
Then you have mechanical maintenance, with that comes disputes with "it was broken, it didn't accept the money" and so forth.
I've probably forgotten a number of other related things, but compare the above to digital solution.
Parking app, where the customer pays only for the parked time, no fiddling with money or keeping track of time. The parking attendant checks much quicker by just scanning the license plate while walking the rounds (could be done via car and a mounted camera even).
Analog just costs more, and citizens doesn't want taxes to go to things that are not strictly necessary.
It was possible for many decades already, budget and maintenance-wise. You can at least accept a credit card as an alternative. Yes, it's not perfect, but the fully digital alternatives also have drawbacks, as pointed by OP.
They are saying that things that have already been dumbed down can't go back. Obviously that's just their opinion, but I would guess that most people agree with them.
> Ruining Android for everyone to try to maybe help some rather technologically-hopeless groups of people is the wrong solution.
This isn't about how skilled a person is, it is about tackling social engineering. The article gave the example of someone posing as a relative, it could also be a blackmail scheme, but it could also be the carefully planned takeover of a respected open source project (ahem, xz).
What I am saying is this sort of crime affect anyone. We simply see more of it among the vulnerable because they are the low hanging fruit. Raising the bar will only change who is vulnerable. Society is simply too invested in technology to dissuade criminals. Which is why I don't think this will work, and why I think going nuclear on truly independent developers is going to do more damage than good.
There's quite a gap between this sort of opportunistic scamming that's happening all over the world and targeted multi-year campaigns that probably require the resources of a nation state.
One way to look at it: there are many open source projects targeting Android, projects that gain some sense of legitimacy over being open source yet have few (if any) eyes vetting them. Or, perhaps, the project is legitimate but people are getting third-party builds. That is what F-Droid does. That is what the developer of a third-party ROM does. It would not require the resources of a nation state to compromise them. I am not trying to cast a shadow on open source projects or F-Droid here. I am simply using them as an example because I use said software and am familiar with that ecosystem. The same goes for any software obtained outside of the Play Store, and it's likely worse since there is no transparency in those cases. Heck, the same goes for software obtained through the Play Store (but we're probably talking about nation state resources on that front).
Another way to look at it: we are only considering a specific avenue for exploitation here. If you close it off, the criminals will look for others. I would be surprised if they weren't looking for ways to bypass Google's checks. I would be surprised if they weren't looking for weaknesses in popular apps. Then there is social engineering. While convincing someone to install software is likely desirable, it certainly isn't the only approach.
Either way, I don't think Google's approach is solving the problem and I think it is going to do a huge amount of damage. Let's face it: major corporations aren't a paragon of goodness, yet Google's shift is handing them the market.
> targeted multi-year campaigns that probably require the resources of a nation state
Ha ha ha, "resources of a nation state"! One could run phishing campaigns at scale over many years without breaking the bank. This was true before LLMs, it's probably even cheaper now.
Sorry, I keep forgetting that LLMs are a thing. But I disagree because many people, especially tech-savvy people, can't possibly trust any communication that has the hallmarks of slop.
At this point it’s naive and perhaps a bit dangerous to assume that any of us can differentiate LLM from non-LLM text. I see less and less recognizable “slop” as time goes on, but I doubt the amount of content being generated has gone down.
I “get” technology so I get how you got here. It’s natural for me.
But this is the wrong take. I expect to go to a restaurant and not die from the food… and I want nothing to do with the inner workings of the kitchen. I just want to know any restaurant I go into will be safe.
How is that not a fair ask for technology, too? We all have things we know well, and then there’s reasons we’re alive that we don’t even know exist because someone took care of it.
Your analogy doesn't work here. Going to a restaurant is like using an app store. Installing apks is like cooking at home. Nothing stops you from cooking a meal that will get you sick.
Now imagine that every restaurant in your city is owned by one of two megacorporations and they really don't want you to have a microwave at home, let alone a stove. They expect that you will get all your food from them. This is where it's going with apps right now.
You could torture the analogy more and say that this is more like saying "it is possible to make bad food and kill yourself at home, so we require everyone to go to a restaurant."
Well, I mean, do you know many houses burn down because someone fell asleep while frying a pork chop? We should just get rid of kitchens at home because it's just not safe.
Oil fires cause immense damage to property and life! I don’t know why stoves are allowed in homes at all. Worse yet, they don’t implement any age verification, so a child can just turn on the burner! It’s crazy!
If you want to cook at home, there's no waiting list. There's no popup you have to confirm three times. You buy a stove, which likely lasts you half your life, a fridge, some dishes, pots, pans and so on.
I think it's fine to give people an easy mode. Not everyone cares about cooking (or tech). I just wish companies weren't trying to take the advanced features from the rest of us who do care.
I think it is different for some people because they are passionate and interested in tech.
I'd imagine someone who is passionate about cooking wouldn't be delighted if you cloudn't buy any ingredients in a store.
I see the value in precooked food and black-box working technology. But for me myself, as an enthusiast: I like being able to tinker and control my technology.
Because no amount of safeguards put up by the restaurant is going to protect you from getting sick of you decide to empty a bottle of bleach into your meal.
This has nothing to do with keeping people safe. If it did then power users could continue to install their own software by being given that ability as a developer setting. The fact that some people are gullible enough to go into a hidden setting on their phone and enable that in order to install an app from a random Chinese website is not a good reason to take away everyone's freedom. Consolidation of power is all this is about.
I was always under the impression security was a red herring and the real reason was control. Google wants to own the device and rent it to users with revocable terms the same way SaaS subscription software works. Locking down what can run is a key step in that process
I worked at a bank on the backend for architecture and security.. and I've posted this attestation here before, but the sheer volume of fraud and fraud attempts in the whole network is astonishing. Our device fingerprinting and no-jailbreak-rules weren't even close to an attempt at control. It was defense, based on network volume and hard losses.
Should we ever suffer a significant loss of customer identity data and/or funds, that risk was considered an existential threat for our customers and our institution.
I'm not coming to Google's defense, but fraud is a big, heavy, violent force in critical infrastructure.
And our phones are a compelling surface area for attacks and identity thefts.
> People who are unwilling to figure out the risks just should not use smartphones and the internet.
That train has left the station decades ago. The internet has become an essential part of modern societies. People can't not use the internet (or smartphones), at least if they don't live in the woods.
I like this idea. But last time I tried it the customer representative on the other line told me they were sorry but they could not accommodate my request at this time.
> At this point I'm convinced that there's something deeply wrong with how our society treats technology.
The problem isnt with technology. The problem is with physical ownership versus copyright/trademark/patent ownership in abeyance of physical ownership.
I go to a store and buy a device. I have a receipt showing a legal and good sale. This device isnt mine, even if a receipt says so.
The software (and now theres ALWAYS software) isnt mine and can never be mine. My ownership is degraded because a company can claim that I didn't buy a copy of software, or that its only licensed, or they retain control remotely.
And the situation is even worse if the company claims its a "digital restriction", ala DMCA. Then even my 1st amendment speech rights are abrogated AND my ownership rights are ignored.
It would not be hard to right this sinking ship.
1. Abolish DMCA.
2. Establish that first sale doctrine is priority above copyright/patent/trademark
3. Tax these 'virtual property rights'
4. Have FTC find any remote control of sold goods be considered as fraudulently classified indefinite rental (want to rent? State it as such)
If you think about for as long as I did, you will find that the moment everything went sideways is when general-purpose computing devices started having their initial bootloader in the mask ROM. Outlaw just that, say, by requiring the first instruction the CPU executes to physically reside in a separate ROM/flash chip, and suddenly, everything is super hackable. But DMCA abolition would certainly be very helpful as well.
> Ruining Android for everyone to try to maybe help some rather technologically-hopeless groups of people is the wrong solution.
Those groups of people are Google's paying customers. Google will, of course, defer to the ones who need more help to be safe online over the ones who don't. That's how you create a safe ecosystem.
Also illegal in Denmark. You need a NemKonto by law. Also making cash payments over 15000 is illegal since 2024.
So you can't make a large purchase without a bank transfer.
Illegal would by a hyperbole. But the noose is tightening a bit.
There are upcoming limits for cash transactions (10K, countries can opt to go lower), and strong requirements for identity verification at 3K or more euros in cash.
Not illegal per se in Germany but you won't find a legal job that doesn't require you to have a bank account. Benefits will also only be paid electronically (exceptions for some asylum seekers apply).
You also cannot get a tax refund or pay taxes without a bank account.
Not sure how it works in countries that didn't go through 80 years of socialism, but I assume that you're saying that in those countries, your salary is required to go to your bank account and can't be paid in cash. Then you can still pretty much "stick to cash" by withdrawing the whole thing on your payday. But then idk, maybe everyone in those countries is aware of the risks related to keeping their money in a bank, it's just the internet banking that introduces the new ones for them.
Is this even the reason? If Android phonemakers are simply concerned about tech-illiterate users switching to iPhone, they could sell a locked-down Android phone that requires some know-how to unlock.
Your mistake is taking Google's argument at face value. Protecting users is an outright lie, this is purely about control.
Google doesn't give one single shit if users download malware from the Play Store, but hypothetical malware from third party sources is so much worse that we need to ruin the whole OS? That doesn't pass the sniff test.
Google wants to make sure you can only download malware from developers who give google a cut. They want to control the OS and remove user choice. That's all it is. That's what it's always been about.
"Protecting users" is a pretense and nothing more. Google does not care at all about user safety. They aren't even capable of caring at this point. There are far, far cheaper and more effective ways to actually protect users, and google isn't doing any of them.
I'm assuming good faith and giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course it might be that they want more control. In addition to controlling the world's most popular web browser and the world's most popular search engine and the world's most popular online advertising network and the world's most popular online video service.
It's really hard to when there's already technical solutions. They could require a process like bootloader unlocking that puts it in "dev" mode for instance
While signing is useful, leaving no escape hatch imo is blatantly predatory
These restrictions already don't apply to something you install over adb, so there's already that. But that still considerably raises the bar for things like apps made by sanctioned entities, for example, most Russian banks.
It's all part of the war on general computing. This dystopian nightmare is coming to desktop operating systems too. See the age verification stuff that's all of a sudden being pushed hard by countries all over the world.
As someone that was going to switch from iPhone to Android/Pixel later this year, at least now I know not to bother anymore, as the locking down of Android won't stop here.
We used to live in that world! Until the 1970s in the US, you actually couldn't take on debt or get a credit card if you had no way to repay it. But liberals pushed for a new law that made it so anybody could access credit and when you open up systems to everyone then the quality goes down dramatically.
We basically do this with everything. Unix is a great operating system, but the Mac version, made for morons, is practically unusable it's so dumbed down.
This is going to hurt legitimate sideloading way more than actually necessary to reduce scams:
- Must enable developer mode -- some apps (e.g., banking apps) will refuse to operate and such when developer mode is on, and so if you depend on such apps, I guess you just can't sideload?
- One-day (day!!!) waiting period to activate (one-time) -- the vast majority of people who need to sideload something will probably not be willing to wait a day, and will thus just not sideload unless they really have no choice for what they need. This kills the pathway for new users to sideload apps that have similar functionality to those on the Play Store.
The rest -- restarting, confirming you aren't being coached, and per-install warnings -- would be just as effective alone to "protect users," but with those prior two points, it's clear that this is just simply intended to make sideloading so inconvenient that many won't bother or can't (dev mode req.).
>- Must enable developer mode -- some apps (e.g., banking apps) will refuse to operate and such when developer mode is on, and so if you depend on such apps, I guess you just can't sideload?
Hi, I'm the community engagement manager @ Android. It's my understanding that you don't have to keep developer options enabled after you enable the advanced flow. Once you make the change on your device, it's enabled.
If you turn off developer options, then to turn off the advanced flow, you would first have to turn developer options back on.
>- One-day (day!!!) waiting period to activate (one-time) -- the vast majority of people who need to sideload something will probably not be willing to wait a day, and will thus just not sideload unless they really have no choice for what they need.
ADB installs are not impacted by the waiting period, so that is an option if you need to install certain unregistered applications immediately.
> ADB installs are not impacted by the waiting period, so that is an option if you need to install certain unregistered applications immediately.
Someone is just going to make a nice GUI application for sideloading apks with a single drag-and-drop, so if your idea is that ADB is a way to ensure only "users who know what they're doing" are gonna sideload, you've done nothing. This is all security theatre.
The scammers don't even need to make a GUI, they just need to get you to enable adb-over-tcp and bridge that to their network somehow - an ssh client app would do the trick.
If you mean things like Shizuku or local adb connection through Termux, it's quite an awkward process to set up even for someone like me who's been building Android apps since 2011. Like, you can do if you really really need it, but most people won't bother. You have to do it again after every reboot, too.
Why do you keep harping on about ADB installs. That's not helpful. It doesn't help me install open source apps from FDroid. It's ridiculous that you think booting up a computer and using ADB is a reasonable workaround. It isn't.
So... we're just going to move the scam into convincing the end user to run an application on their PC to ADB sideload the Scam App. Got it, simple enough. It's not hard to coach a user into clicking the "no, I'm not being coached" button, too, to guide them towards the ADB enable flow.
I think this is a "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good thing". It's technically possible to get around, but adding more speed bumps in the way of scammers tends to drastically reduce the number of people who get scammed.
Do I need to be signed in to Google play to get the sideloading exception turned on? I don't sign in to it because I don't want to have my phone associated with a Google account. But I can't uninstall play completely on the devices I have.
It says something about 'restart your phone and reauthenticate' that's why I'm asking. What do you autenticate?
> ADB installs are not impacted by the waiting period, so that is an option if you need to install certain unregistered applications immediately.
Um yeah but then do I have to install every update via adb? I want to just use F-Droid.
>It says something about 'restart your phone and reauthenticate' that's why I'm asking. What do you autenticate?
You're authenticating that you're the device owner (via your device's saved biometrics or PIN/pattern/password).
>Um yeah but then do I have to install every update via adb? I want to just use F-Droid.
No, once you go through the advanced flow and choose the option to allow installing unregistered apps indefinitely, you can both install and update unregistered apps without going through the flow again (or using ADB).
> - Must enable developer mode -- some apps (e.g., banking apps) will refuse to operate and such when developer mode is on, and so if you depend on such apps, I guess you just can't sideload?
What apps are those? I've yet to run into any of my banking apps that refuse to run with developer mode enabled. I've seen a few that do that for rooted phones but that's a different story. I've been running android for a decade and a half now with developer mode turned on basically the whole time and never had an app refuse to load because of it.
I can use Wero just fine in my banking app. Can't try the app that's called Wero in the Play store because it just directs me to my banking app. But I can open it at least ...
The one-day waiting period is so arbitrary. Have they demonstrated any supporting data? We know google loves to flaunt data.
Something like Github's approach of forcing users to type the name of the repo they wish to delete would seem to be more than sufficient to protect technically disinclined users while still allowing technically aware users to do what they please with their own device.
Brother, there's an entire genre of scamming where the scammers spend months building rapport with their victims, usually without ever asking for anything, before "cashing out". One day is nothing.
This is obvious to anyone with a brain. I'm not familiar with scam logistics or the videos you mentioned, and the exact same line you put in quotes is what first came to my mind.
tl;dr of this post is that Google wants to lock down Android and be its gatekeeper. Every other point of discussion is just a distraction.
Right, this friction makes it much harder for a scammer to get away with saying something like, "wire me $10,000 right now or you won't see your child ever again!" as the potential victim is forced to wait 24 hours before they can install the scammer's malicious app, thus giving them time to think about it and/or call their trusted contacts.
The sheer arrogance that you think someone manipulated successfully will just re-think the situation and ask their friends/family. The naivety to assume all scammers are impulsive fools and don't do this for a living, as their primary line of work.
So Google's going to add some nonsense abstraction layer and when this fails to curb the problem after a 24 hour wait, it will be extended more maybe a week, and more information must be collected to release it. We all know how this goes.
Sure, but what about a 30 minute delay? 1 hour? 2 hour?
24 is just so long.
But also, my expectation is that a scammer is going to just automate the flow here anyways. Cool, you hit the "24 hour" wait period, I'll call you back tomorrow, the next day, or the next day and continue the scam process.
It might stop some less sophisticated spammers for a little bit, but I expect that it'll just be a few tweaks to make it work again.
24 hours is long enough to get them off the phone, and potentially talking to other people who might recognize the scam.
There will be some proportion of people who mention to their spouse/child/friend about how Google called them to fix their phone, and are saved by that waiting period.
Sure, but wouldn't 35 hours do the same trick? Or 5 hours? Or 10 hours and 28 minutes? :)
The question is, why exactly 24 hours? The argument is that the time limit is set to protect the users and sacrifice usability to do so. So it would be prudent to set the time limit to the shortest amount that will protect the user -> and that shortest amount is apparently 24 hours, which is rather.. suspiciously long and round :)
Well, I guess 24 hours gives a good change to include at least one window where a vulnerable person might be able to speak with a trusted contact.
Someone who lives in another timezone or works weird hours etc. Our routines generally repeat on 24hour schedules, so likely to be one point of overlap.
You've got to pick some time value (if you choose this route at all), and if the goal is to prevent urgency-coercion it needs to be at least multiple hours. An extremely-common-for-humans one seems rather obvious compared to, like, 18.2 hours (65,536 seconds).
Unless you want to pick 1 week. But that's a lot more annoying.
Have you ever watched Kitboga? Scammers call people back all the time. They keep spreadsheets of their marks like a CRM. It takes time to build trust and victimize someone, and these scammers are very patient.
their goal is to make software installation as painful as possible without being outright impossible : ‘sideloading’ is only ever a euphemism for ‘illegitimate’.
> This is going to hurt legitimate sideloading way more than actually necessary to reduce scams
Isn't that the objective? "Reducing scams" is the same kind of argument as "what about the children"; it's supposed to make you stop thinking about what it means, because the intentions are so good.
You have to wait one day only once, when enabling the feature. I agree that enabling developer mode could be a problem but mostly because it's buried below screens and multiple touches. As a data point, I enabled developer mode on all my devices since 2011 and no banking app complained about it. But it could depend by the different banking systems of our countries.
I don't know. I've been silently outraged and disappointed by this whole forbidding of unverified apps, but also hopeful it wouldn't affect me much as a user of grapheneos.
But this process seems pretty reasonable to me.
I'd like to think it is due in part to the efforts of F-Droid and others.
Waiting a day, once, to disable this protection doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I'd probably do it once when I got a phone and then forget about it.
I happen to have developer mode enabled right now, for no good reason other than I never disabled last time I needed it. Haven't had any issues with any apps.
I actually think these protections could help mitigate scammers.
We'll see when this rolls out, but I don't foresee the package manager checking for developer mode when launching "unverified" apps, just when installing them. AFAICT the verification service is only queried on install currently.
Googler here (community engagement for Android) - I looked into the developer options question, and it's my understanding that you don't have to keep developer options enabled after you enable the advanced flow. Once you make the change on your device, it's enabled.
If you turn off developer options, then to turn off the advanced flow, you would first have to turn developer options back on.
> some apps (e.g., banking apps) will refuse to operate and such when developer mode is on
Enable dev mode, sideload the apk, then disable dev mode. I'd argue that it is poor security practice to keep developer mode enabled long-term on a phone that is used for everyday activities, such as banking.
As described developer mode is only required at install time. Remains to be seen in the actual implementation, but as described in the post developer mode can be switched off after apps have been side loaded.
Yes, it is really dumb that some of these settings are exposed to all apps with no permission gating [0]. But it will likely always be possible to fingerprint based on enabled developer options because there are preferences which can only be enabled via the developer options UI and (arguably) need to be visible to apps.
Because estimates suggest Americans lose about $119 billion annually to financial scams, which is a not insignificant fraction of our entire military budget, or more than 5% of annual social security expenditures.
Nobody reads disclaimers, and people who get scammed and lose their life savings won't be made whole by being told "you accepted the disclaimer, nothing we can do."
Most of the victims were last in school in the 1960s when all this stuff didn't exist. Also from experience teaching people with dementia or memory issues is kinda challenging as they just forget.
I wonder if you might be relying on a stereotype of victims. Here's some recent data: "The 2024 FTC Consumer Sentinel Network reported that 44% of all 20-somethings claimed losses in 2023". More data here: https://www.synovus.com/personal/resource-center/fraud-preve...
Welp, I guess my current Android phone will be my last one.
At least half of the apps I use on a daily basis come from f-droid. This enforced 24-hour wait is simply not acceptable. Android has always been a far inferior overall user experience compared to iPhone. Android's _only_ saving grace was that I could put my own third-party open-source apps on it. There is nothing left keeping me on Android now.
I hope this hastens progress on a real "Linux phone" for the rest of us. Plasma Mobile (https://plasma-mobile.org) looks very nice indeed. I'll be more than happy to contribute to development and funding.
The forced ID for developers outside the Play store is already killing open source projects you could get on F-Droid. The EU really needs to identify this platform gatekeeping as a threat. As an EU citizen I should not be forced to give government ID to a US company, which can blacklist me without recourse, in order to share apps with other EU citizens on devices we own.
The DSA covers App stores with a large numbers of users - this is about allowing users side load unsigned apps. Afaik there is no requirement to identify the developers of applications that can be installed on a vendors platform (outside the app store). Otherwise Microsoft would require Government ID to compile and email someone an EXE.
Death, taxes and escalating safety are the only certainities in this tech dominated world. So, be ready for more safety in the next round few months/years down the line. Eventually Android will become as secure as ios. We need a third alternative before that day comes.
It's not a win by any means. I hope that we don't stop making noise.
It's a a defeat, albeit a minor one. The defeats will escalate until there's nothing left to lose. "Normies" don't care and the tech people who do care are fewer and further between than you'd think.
I believe that is why "escalating safety" and "secure" were written in italics in the comment. Those are the terms Google would use, not necessarily the truth.
Google serves ads with known scams and nothing seems done about it.
Yet, they are concerned about this.
It has nothing to do with safety, but everything to do with control.
I remember when Google disabled call recording in Android, so you no longer could record scammers. Thanks to recording I was able to get money back from insurance company that claimed they absolutely didn't sell me this and that over the phone (paid for premium insurance and got basic).
> I remember when Google disabled call recording in Android, so you no longer could record scammers.
Citation needed. My Pixel 7a with the latest updates has settings for call recording in the phone app. Since I never screwed around with it, I'd assume these are the defaults:
Call recording is turned on, with "asks to record calls" set
Automatically delete recordings is "never"
Automatically record calls with non-contacts is off
No specific numbers to automatically record calls are set
There is also a note that you have to agree to their ToS to use it, and I'd also suggest being careful if you live in a jurisdiction that requires two-party consent for recording.
In any case, I'm of the opinion that if F-Droid goes, I'm basically going to treat this as a feature phone and stay away from third-party apps in general aside from "musts" like banking.
Tbh, I love this flow. They truely think for users, all users not just advanced users. Unlike Apple, Apple just think for its ecosystem, its money.
How the advanced flow works for users
Enable developer mode in system settings: Activating this is simple. This prevents accidental triggers or "one-tap" bypasses often used in high-pressure scams.
Confirm you aren't being coached: There is a quick check to make sure that no one is talking you into turning off your security. While power users know how to vet apps, scammers often pressure victims into disabling protections.
Restart your phone and reauthenticate: This cuts off any remote access or active phone calls a scammer might be using to watch what you’re doing.
Come back after the protective waiting period and verify: There is a one-time, one-day wait and then you can confirm that this is really you who’s making this change with our biometric authentication (fingerprint or face unlock) or device PIN. Scammers rely on manufactured urgency, so this breaks their spell and gives you time to think.
Install apps: Once you confirm you understand the risks, you’re all set to install apps from unverified developers, with the option of enabling for 7 days or indefinitely. For safety, you’ll still see a warning that the app is from an unverified developer, but you can just tap “Install Anyway.”
This 24-hour wait time nonsense is a humiliation ritual designed to invalidate any expectation of Android being an open platform. The messaging is very clear and the writing's on the wall now, there's nowhere to go from here but down.
I'm not in agreement with most of you, hn. They've found a decent compromise that works for power users and the general population. Your status as a power user does not invalidate the need to help the more vulnerable.
Having to wait a day for a one off isn't a big deal, if they kept it looser then you'd be shouting about the amount of scams that propagate on the platform.
This helping the vulnerable framing is naive at best. This is about an American ad company consolidating their power over what people can do with devices they bought and are reliant on daily.
Helping the vulnerable should not involve that. If your only idea on how to help the vulnerable involves that, think of better ideas.
My personal hard line is having to ask Google for permission to sideload. Even if it's free and no personal info is exchanged.
This new process is annoying but I can see it helping prevent scams.
I'm generally OK with this, but the 24 hour hang time does seem a bit onerous.
Most of the apps on my phone are installed from F-Droid. I guess the next time I get a new phone I'll have to wait at least 24 hours for it to become useful.
I'm seriously considering Graphene for a next personal device and whatever the cheapest iOS device is for work.
The apps might not be available though. Many developers are simply stopping in the face of Google's invasive policies. I don't blame them. Say goodbye to useful apps like Newpipe.
A few apps have been showing pop-ups warning users in advance that they are not going to do the verification. Obtanium is definitely on of them. I think I saw something similar on NewPipe.
This is hopefully an exciting time to consider a Motorola device, since they are partnering with GrapheneOS, but I worry that Google will block Google Play Services on any device that doesn't comply, so this might actually be a demoralizing time to be a GrapheneOS fan, when we watch them worm their stupid walled garden nonsense into the Motorola version of it.
You don't need Google Play at all on GrapheneOS. You have to option of installing a sandboxed version of Google Play, but it isn't installed by default. Google's verification shenanigans are otherwise irrelevant to Graphene, it only applies to apps distributed through the Google store.
The vast majority of apks work just fine without Google libraries. In some rare cases, things such as notifications that depend on Google's servers may not work if the developers haven't not implemented an alternative backend such as a direct connection.
As an idea, what about allowing the 24 hours to be bypassed using adb (edit: bypass to allow indefinitely, not just install a single app)?
I understand there is some problem trying to be solved here, but honestly this is still quite frustrating for legitimate uses. If this is the direction that computing is moving, I'd really rather there were separate products available for power users/devs that reflected our different usage.
Right, if this is being built into AOSP I dont see how they wouldn't add an adb command to immediately skip the "Advanced Flow" wait. if it's safe to let uses run "adb install", then "adb skip-advanced-flow" should be just as safe to do too.
I switched to iOS in anticipation of this change. The reality is, if they are thinking about doing this, it's only a matter of time before they do it. If I have to choose between two walled gardens, apple will win every time.
24 hour mandatory wait time to side load!? All apps I want to use on my phone are not in the Play Store. So I buy a new phone (or wipe a used phone) and then I can’t even use it for 24 hours?
1) The one-time, one-day waiting period only applies if you go through the advanced flow to allow installing unregistered apps. You can still install registered apps (ie. apps made by developers who have verified their identity) even if they're distributed outside the Play Store.
2) You can use ADB to immediately install unregistered apps. ADB installs are not subject to the waiting period.
So let's say I'm F-Droid, an organization making a direct competitor to the Google Play Store and openly pointing out how much scammy shit is available in that store. My options are 1) submit my identity to Google (my competitor) so they can identify me and choose to revoke that verification at any point, or 2) I can tell all my users that they must go through these scary dialogs AND wait 1 day before they can use my competing product? That's cool, glad we've got the options laid out in front of us.
I forgot 3) instruct my users how to use ADB from another computer to install my competing app. Awesome.
From purely a usability standpoint, not a freedom standpoint, I would actually be okay with that for my personal use if it stayed like that. But the point is that they're just making it worse and worse. They won't stop with this. I can arrange to do without an important app for a day, even if I had to get a new phone unexpectedly (If I had to skip attending an event and stay at home where my computer is, because I could only properly be on call with my sideloaded app, I'd chalk it up to an unusual situation). But it won't be long before they change it again.
Would Obtainium continue to work? I like the freedom of entrusting developers I know and installing APKs from repositories instead of restricting myself to app stores whose publishers have to be identified and approved by an advertising company.
Scammers will just start the process and call back the next day. There is an entire genre of scam relying on slowly building rapport and only cashing in once all the way at the end.
> In addition to the advanced flow we’re building free, limited distribution accounts for students and hobbyists. This allows you to share apps with a small group (up to 20 devices) without needing to provide a government-issued ID or pay a registration fee.
I don't quite understand how those installs would be tracked. If I create a "hobbyist" account and share the apk, are the devices that install that app all reporting it to Google? To my knowledge, Google only does this through the optional Play Protect system, is that now no longer optional? I'd like to know if my computer is reporting every app I install up to Google.
Hmm, as long as the waiting period is not per-app then maybe this is OK. Especially now that there is a well supported way to distribute alternative app stores without going through the sideloading process.
The 24 hour wait period is the largest of the annoyances in this list, but given that adb installs still work, I think this is a list of things I can ultimately live with.
I'd rather not have to go through this ritual, but I appreciate that there is a genuine security problem that google are trying to address. I also suspect that they have other motivations bound-up in this - principally discouraging use of alternative app stores. But basically I could live with this process.
Yeah, I know... Stockholm syndrome...
Although I may not have to live with it, as none of my present devices are recent enough to still receive ota updates.
Context: I don't use alternative app stores. I occasionally side-load updates to apps that I've written myself, and very occasionally third party apps from trusted sources.
I don't think developers targeting alternative app stores would care much about having to perform verified developer registration. Particularly apps that are available in both Play Store and alternative app stores.
Reminder that when you use terminology like "sideloading" you're accepting the premise that there's something inherently dodgy about installing your software onto your operating system.
Do you need a Google account to opt out of the restriction? It says something about authenticating.
I don't have a Google account on my Androids. But I can't remove play services on them, sadly. As an intermediate protection I just don't sign in to Google play, that gives them at least a bit less identifying information to play with.
I wonder how long this will last before they lock it down further. There was a lot of pushback this time around and they still ended up increasing the temperature of the metaphorical boiling frog. It still seems like they're pushing towards the Apple model where those who don't want to self-dox and/or pay get a very limited key (what Google currently calls "limited distribution accounts").
Nothing screams being infantilised by your platform more than having to wait 24 hours to be allowed to install software on your own purchased computing devices.
The secret reason they are doing this is because governments want to be able to identify everyone online everywhere it matters at all time. They want to strip anonymity from computing.
Apple and Google can now credibly claim to governments to have nearly ubiquitous computing platforms that they can guarantee do not run any software that is not approved or antithetical to the goals of authorities. This makes the device safe for storing things like government IDs. OSs and Browsers will be required to present these IDs or at first just attest to them.
Before posting online, renting a server, using an app you will have to idenitfy yourself using your phone or similarly locked down PC (i.e. mac).
The introduction is under the guise as always of protecting the children. In reality they are removing your rights to privacy and free speech.
>And what is malware? For [Android Ecosystem President], malware in the context of developer verification is an application package that “causes harm to the user’s device or personal data that the user did not intend.”
Like when Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, et al. cooperated with¹ the unconstitutional and illegal² PRISM program to hand over bulk user data to the NSA without a warrant? That kind of harm to my personal data that I did not intend?
If so, I'd love to hear an explanation of why every Google/Alphabet, Facebook/Meta, and Microsoft application haven't been removed for being malware already.
I'd urge everyone here to seriously consider switching to GrapheneOS. It's a far simpler transition than e.g. switching from Windows or OSX to Linux, and many people find that it has basically no friction vs android.
More people moving to GrapheneOS is the best tool we have against Google's continued and escalating hostility to user freedom and privacy and general anti-competitive conduct. (Of course, you could ditch having a smartphone entirely..., but if you're willing to consider that you don't need me plugging an alternative).
From my read, it's explicitly a one-time thing. Presumably that means that even if you pick the "allow for 7 days" option, you can re-enable it after that without a delay (maybe with a reboot?).
Honestly, if coerced sideloading is a real attack vector, then this seems to be a pretty fair compromise.
I just remain skeptical that this tactic is successful on modern Android, with all the settings and scare screens you need to go through in order to sideload an app and grant dangerous permissions.
I expect scammers will move to pre-packaged software with a bundled ADB client for Windows/Mac, then the flow is "enable developer options" -> "enable usb debugging" -> "install malware and grant permissions with one click over ADB". People with laptops are more lucrative targets anyway.
The scam only has to work on a tiny slice of users, and the people who fall for fake bank alerts or package texts will march through a pile of Android warnigns if the script is convincing enough. Once the operator gets them onto a PC, the whole thing gets easier because ADB turns it into a guided install instead of a phone-only sideload.
That's why I don't think the extra prompts matter much beyond raising attacker cost a bit. Google is patching the visible path while the scam just moves one hop sideways.
After today's announced policy goes into effect, it will be easier to coach users to install a Progressive Web App ("Installable Web Apps") than it will be to coach users to sideload a native Android app, even if the Android app has no permissions to do anything more than what an Installable Web App can do: make basic HTTPS requests and store some app-local data. (99% of apps need no more permissions than that!)
I think Google believes it should be easy to install a web app. It should be just as easy to sideload a native app with limited permissions. But it should be very hard/expensive for a malware author to anonymously distribute an app with the permission to intercept texts and calls.
I don't think Google has a strategy around what should be easy for users to do. PWAs still lack native capabilities and are obviously shortcuts to Chrome, and Google pushes developers to Trusted Web Activities which need to be published on the Play Store or sideloaded.
But these developer verification policies don't make any exceptions for permission-light apps, nor do they make it harder to sideload apps which request dangerous permissions, they just identify developers. I also suspect that making developer verification dependent on app manifest permissions opens up a bypass, as the package manager would need to check both on each update instead of just on first install.
Yep, I have a legitimate use case for exactly this. It integrates directly with my application and gives it native phone capabilities that are unavailable if I were to use a VoIP provider of any kind.
As a legitimate developer developing an app with the power to take over the phone, I think it's appropriate to ask you to verify your identity. It should be an affordable one-time verification process.
This should not be required for apps that do HTTPS requests and store app-local data, like 99%+ of all apps, including 99% of F-Droid apps.
But, in my opinion, the benefit of anonymity to you is much smaller than the harm of anonymous malware authors coaching/coercing users to install phone-takeover apps.
(I'm sure you and I won't agree about this; I bet you have a principled stand that you should be able to anonymously distribute malware phone-takeover apps because "I own my device," and so everyone must be vulnerable to being coerced to install malware under that ethical principle. It's a reasonable stance, but I don't share it, and I don't think most people share it.)
I think you read a bit too much into my message. I agree, it's complicated, I don't want my parents and grandparents easily getting scammed.
But yes they are my devices, and I should be able to do exactly what I want with them. If I'm forced to deal with other developers incredibly shitty decisions around how they treat VoIP numbers, guess who's going to have a stack of phones with cheap plans in the office instead of paying a VoIP provider...
But no, I have no interest in actually distributing software like that further than than the phones sitting in my office.
For a security-sensitive permission like intercepting texts and calls, I'm not sure it makes sense for that to be anonymous at all, not even for local development, not even for students/hobbyists.
Getting someone to verify their identity before they have the permission to completely takeover my phone feels pretty reasonable to me. It should be a cheap, one-time process to verify your identity and develop an app with that much power.
I can already hear the reply, "What a slippery slope! First Google will make you verify identity for complete phone takeovers, but soon enough they'll try to verify developer identity for all apps."
But if I'm forced to choose between "any malware author can anonymously intercept texts and calls" or "only identified developers can do that, and maybe someday Google will go too far with it," I'm definitely picking the latter.
> Honestly, if coerced sideloading is a real attack vector, [...]
I don't believe that it is. I follow this "scene" pretty closely, and that means I read about successful scams all the time. They happen in huge numbers. Yet I have never encountered a reliable report of one that utilized a "sideloaded"[1] malicious app. Not once. Phishing email messages and web sites, sure. This change will not help counter those, though.
I don't even see what you could accomplish with a malicious app that you couldn't otherwise. I would certainly be interested to hear of any real world cases demonstrating the danger.
[1] When I was a kid, this was called "installing."
This is the thing that bothers me the most about this. It is as if even the HN crowd is taking it as given that malware is this big problem for banking on Android but in reality there seems to be very little evidence to back this up. I regularly read local (Finnish) news stories about scams and they always seem to be about purely social engineering via whatsapp or the scammer calling their number and convincing the victim they are a banking official or police etc.
That's why I'm inclined to believe Google is just using safety as an excuse to further leverage their monopoly.
I am not happy about this, but as long as advanced Android users can still turn this off and keep it off, we're still in a better place than iOS.
Even though I understand the design decisions here, I think we're going about this the wrong way. Sure, users can be pressured into allowing unverified apps and installing malware, and adding a 24-hour delay will probably reduce the number of victims, but ultimately, the real solution here is user education, not technological guardrails.
If I want to completely nuke my phone with malware, Google shouldn't stand in my way. Why not just force me to read some sort of "If someone is rushing you to do this, it is probably an attack" message before letting me adjust this setting?
Anyone who ignores that warning is probably going to still fall for the scam. If anything, scammers will just communicate the new process, and it risks sounding even more legitimate if they have to go through more Google-centric steps.
I get that its pretty clear with the straight sideloading case, but can anyone say for sure what this will look like for an f-droid user? Its hard to keep track but I thought something new here because of EU is that alternative app stores != sideloading? Something where app stores could choose themselves to get "verified," whatever that means, to become a trusted vendor? Or is this completely wrong?
What? No requirement to personally bring in a form in triplicate to the Google office in Siberia, of course notarized by the Pope and Zendaya, and simply prove it was signed on the moon.
They'll just remove the "Advanced" ability in a few years once they've frog boiled people into jumping through hoops to use their phone the way they want.
Meh. I get the annoyance, but it's a one time cost for a small subset of their users. I would prefer if there was a flow during device setup that allowed you to opt into developer mode (with all the attendant big scary warnings), but it's a pretty reasonable balance for the vast majority of their users. (I suspect the number of scammers that are able to get a victim to buy a whole new device and onboard it is probably very low).
Good point, having a once off advanced option to completely bypass this at device setup would be good.
Also, other commenters have mentioned that adb is unaffected by this which makes it seem like less of a problem, to me at least. Still inconvenient that even if you adb install fdroid you can't install apps directly from it.
Developers, including non-US citizens, are forced to give Google their government ID to distribute apps. This enables Google to track and censor projects, like NewPipe, an alternative open source Youtube frontend, by revoking signing permissions for developers.
>Developers, including non-US citizens, are forced to give Google their government ID to distribute apps.
Developers can choose to not undergo verification, thereby remaining anonymous. The only change is that their applications will need to be installed via ADB and/or this new advanced flow on certified Android devices.
Either way, you can still distribute your apps wherever you want. If you verify your identity, then there are no changes to the existing installation flow from a user perspective. If you choose not to verify your identity, then the installation will still be possible but only through high-friction methods (ADB, advanced flow). These methods are high-friction so anonymous scammers can't easily coerce their victims into installing malicious software.
This. Side loading being restricted is only one part of the problem; the other is mandatory developer verification for apps distributed through the Play Store.
That's not correct - the flow described in the post outlines the requirements to install any apps that haven't had their signature registered with Google.
That means those apps still keep on existing, they are just more of a hassle to install.
They already announced it. Here they only mention the special case where it does not apply:
> In addition to the advanced flow we’re building free, limited distribution accounts for students and hobbyists. This allows you to share apps with a small group (up to 20 devices) without needing to provide a government-issued ID or pay a registration fee.
i.e. Government-issued ID and fees are needed for more than 20 devices, e,g, every app on F-Droid
I'll say it again: this isn't a problem for Android to solve. Scammers will naturally adapt their "processes" to account for this 24-hour requirement and IMO it might make it seem more legitimate to the victim because there's less urgency.
The onus of protecting people's wealth should fall on the bank / institution who manages that persons wealth.
Nevertheless, this solution is better than ID verification for devs.
Why should the bank/institution be responsible for protecting individuals from themselves? They don't have police power- protecting people from bad actors is like, the reason to have a state. If the state wishes to farm it out to third parties, then we don't need the state anymore!
Yea I have no idea why the original commenter thinks Banks should have the power to tell me what I can and can't do with my own money.
It's nice that Zelle has checks and identity information shown to you when you're sending money, but if I click through 5 screens that say "Yes I know this person" but I actually don't.....no amount of regulation is going to solve that.
Banks absolutely have that power and will stop transactions that seem suspicious or fraudulent already, no? Sometimes they'll call/text to verify you want it go through. I imagine that type of thing but cranked up for accounts flagged "vulnerable" where a family or the person themselves can check a box saying "yes, lockdown this account heavily please" (or whatever you can imagine, idk, I'm not a bank)
The bank/institution is where the money is leaving from therefore they should implement policies that protect vulnerable customers like seniors, for example. I don't know how that looks but it seems reasonable that they could put limits on an account flagged "vulnerable person"
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rant about police power and a state? Google isn't the government either. What would legislation provide that banks can't already do today?
Sure, there are things banks can do, and those are features they can market. But ultimately, if the state isn't pursuing criminals who prey on the vulnerable, then society as we know it has failed and we would need a new society, or a new state, or both...The bank can't arrest anyone!
I never said anything about it being Googles responsability, I agree it is not. And the only legislation that might be necessary over what we have is a budget directly to go after criminal fraudsters.
Fraud is already illegal, the issue is that these scammers reside in other countries. I don't doubt there could be pressure applied from really high up at the diplomatic level but I highly doubt the FBI for example is going to be able to do anything even with legislation.
> I'll say it again: this isn't a problem for Android to solve.
They're not solving that problem. They're using it as an excuse to lock down the platform further and assume more control. Any incidental benefit for user "security" is an unintended consequence of their real agenda.
It's not like the Google Play store hasn't been known to host malicious apps, yet you are not required to wait 24 hours before you install apps from their store.
I suspect they are hoping users just give up and go to the play store instead. Google touts about "Play Protect" which scans all apps on the device, even those from unknown sources so these measures can barely be justified.
Imagine if Microsoft said you need to wait 24 hours before installing a program not from their store, which is against the entire premise of windows.
Computing, I once believed was based on an open idea that people made software and you could install it freely, yes there are bad actors, but that's why we had antivirus and other protection methods, now we're inch by inch losing those freedoms. iOS wants you to enter your date of birth now.
The future feels very uncertain, but we need to protect the little freedoms we have left, once they're gone, they're gone for good.
It's a little inconvenient for someone setting up a new phone to have to wait a full day to install unregistered apps. But while I can't speak for others, it's a price I'm personally willing to pay to make the types of scams they mention much less effective. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
How would you feel about needing to wait 24 hours to visit an "unapproved" website on your phone? You would pay Google/Apple $25 to get whitelisted so people can browse to your personal website without getting a scary security message.
This is the same thing since it applies to all apps, not just apps that need special permissions.
On what basis do you believe that it will meaningfully reduce the dollars lost or persons harmed by fraud, as opposed to simple shuffling around the exact means used?
I can bet that a few versions down the line, the "Not recommended" option of allowing installs indefinitely will become so not recommended that they'll remove it outright. Then shrink the 7 day window to 3 days or less. Or only give users one allowed attempt at installing an app, after which it's another 24 hour waiting period for you. Then ask the user to verify themselves as a developer if they want to install whatever they want. Whatever helps them turn people away from alternatives and shrink the odds of someone dislodging their monopoly, they will do. Anything to drive people to Google Play only.
Ruining Android for everyone to try to maybe help some rather technologically-hopeless groups of people is the wrong solution. It's unsustainable in the long run. Also, the last thing this world needs right now is even more centralization of power. Especially around yet another US company.
People who are unwilling to figure out the risks just should not use smartphones and the internet. They should not use internet banking. They should probably not have a bank account at all and just stick to cash. And the society should be able to accommodate such people — which is not that hard, really. Just roll back some of the so-called innovations that happened over the last 15 years. Whether someone uses technology, and how much they do, should be a choice, not a burden.
Sounds great in theory, but just today I was reminded how impossible this is when walking back from lunch, I noticed all the parking meters covered with a hood, labelled with instructions on how to pay with the app.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/city-of-regina-r...
EDIT: I guess "just" is doing some heavy-lifting, so I won't argue this further, but "impossible" isn't the word I would use either. The city could revert this decision, definitely if enough people wanted them to (that's... I know, the hardest part). I just agree with the OP think we technically could go back to slightly less-digital society.
I don't see the "impossible" in my understanding of the linked article.
Coin-operated meters means someone have to come around checking the meter, collect coins, check the parking tickets. One person can only cover so many devices per day.
Then you have mechanical maintenance, with that comes disputes with "it was broken, it didn't accept the money" and so forth.
I've probably forgotten a number of other related things, but compare the above to digital solution.
Parking app, where the customer pays only for the parked time, no fiddling with money or keeping track of time. The parking attendant checks much quicker by just scanning the license plate while walking the rounds (could be done via car and a mounted camera even).
Analog just costs more, and citizens doesn't want taxes to go to things that are not strictly necessary.
This isn't about how skilled a person is, it is about tackling social engineering. The article gave the example of someone posing as a relative, it could also be a blackmail scheme, but it could also be the carefully planned takeover of a respected open source project (ahem, xz).
What I am saying is this sort of crime affect anyone. We simply see more of it among the vulnerable because they are the low hanging fruit. Raising the bar will only change who is vulnerable. Society is simply too invested in technology to dissuade criminals. Which is why I don't think this will work, and why I think going nuclear on truly independent developers is going to do more damage than good.
One way to look at it: there are many open source projects targeting Android, projects that gain some sense of legitimacy over being open source yet have few (if any) eyes vetting them. Or, perhaps, the project is legitimate but people are getting third-party builds. That is what F-Droid does. That is what the developer of a third-party ROM does. It would not require the resources of a nation state to compromise them. I am not trying to cast a shadow on open source projects or F-Droid here. I am simply using them as an example because I use said software and am familiar with that ecosystem. The same goes for any software obtained outside of the Play Store, and it's likely worse since there is no transparency in those cases. Heck, the same goes for software obtained through the Play Store (but we're probably talking about nation state resources on that front).
Another way to look at it: we are only considering a specific avenue for exploitation here. If you close it off, the criminals will look for others. I would be surprised if they weren't looking for ways to bypass Google's checks. I would be surprised if they weren't looking for weaknesses in popular apps. Then there is social engineering. While convincing someone to install software is likely desirable, it certainly isn't the only approach.
Either way, I don't think Google's approach is solving the problem and I think it is going to do a huge amount of damage. Let's face it: major corporations aren't a paragon of goodness, yet Google's shift is handing them the market.
Ha ha ha, "resources of a nation state"! One could run phishing campaigns at scale over many years without breaking the bank. This was true before LLMs, it's probably even cheaper now.
And yet, people on HN respond to bots all the time.
But this is the wrong take. I expect to go to a restaurant and not die from the food… and I want nothing to do with the inner workings of the kitchen. I just want to know any restaurant I go into will be safe.
How is that not a fair ask for technology, too? We all have things we know well, and then there’s reasons we’re alive that we don’t even know exist because someone took care of it.
Now imagine that every restaurant in your city is owned by one of two megacorporations and they really don't want you to have a microwave at home, let alone a stove. They expect that you will get all your food from them. This is where it's going with apps right now.
I think it's fine to give people an easy mode. Not everyone cares about cooking (or tech). I just wish companies weren't trying to take the advanced features from the rest of us who do care.
I'd imagine someone who is passionate about cooking wouldn't be delighted if you cloudn't buy any ingredients in a store.
I see the value in precooked food and black-box working technology. But for me myself, as an enthusiast: I like being able to tinker and control my technology.
...and...
some people are gullible enough to go into a hidden setting on their phone and enable that in order to install an app from a random Chinese website
are kind of contradictory.
Should we ever suffer a significant loss of customer identity data and/or funds, that risk was considered an existential threat for our customers and our institution.
I'm not coming to Google's defense, but fraud is a big, heavy, violent force in critical infrastructure.
And our phones are a compelling surface area for attacks and identity thefts.
How do you plan to decide who gets to use internet banking and who doesn't? That doesn't seem like a good road to be going down, either.
We haven't started watering crops with salt-water but it's only a matter of time.
That train has left the station decades ago. The internet has become an essential part of modern societies. People can't not use the internet (or smartphones), at least if they don't live in the woods.
The problem isnt with technology. The problem is with physical ownership versus copyright/trademark/patent ownership in abeyance of physical ownership.
I go to a store and buy a device. I have a receipt showing a legal and good sale. This device isnt mine, even if a receipt says so.
The software (and now theres ALWAYS software) isnt mine and can never be mine. My ownership is degraded because a company can claim that I didn't buy a copy of software, or that its only licensed, or they retain control remotely.
And the situation is even worse if the company claims its a "digital restriction", ala DMCA. Then even my 1st amendment speech rights are abrogated AND my ownership rights are ignored.
It would not be hard to right this sinking ship.
Those groups of people are Google's paying customers. Google will, of course, defer to the ones who need more help to be safe online over the ones who don't. That's how you create a safe ecosystem.
Pretty much illegal in some parts of EU
Also how is it related to the EU if it only affects certain places? Could have just said certain places in Europe
There are upcoming limits for cash transactions (10K, countries can opt to go lower), and strong requirements for identity verification at 3K or more euros in cash.
See: https://www.deloittelegal.de/dl/en/services/legal/perspectiv...
EDIT: The other side of the coin is that banks are _required_ to give legal residents of a country a basic account that can be used for payments.
-have a steady contract -are paid more than 1000€ for a job (say you are self-employed).
You also cannot get a tax refund or pay taxes without a bank account.
Not if you want to make a purchase beyond a small amount, like $500 or $1000. Then it has to be through some fucking bank or CC.
You "may" but maybe you "cannot".
So long as the 5g chips and the 2 mobile app stores remain under control, then 5 eyes has nearly full coverage.
That's ridiculous. Phones are being made more and more of a requirement to participate in society, including by governments.
The latter is what's ridiculous, not what the parent suggests.
Google doesn't give one single shit if users download malware from the Play Store, but hypothetical malware from third party sources is so much worse that we need to ruin the whole OS? That doesn't pass the sniff test.
Google wants to make sure you can only download malware from developers who give google a cut. They want to control the OS and remove user choice. That's all it is. That's what it's always been about.
"Protecting users" is a pretense and nothing more. Google does not care at all about user safety. They aren't even capable of caring at this point. There are far, far cheaper and more effective ways to actually protect users, and google isn't doing any of them.
Of course it might be that they want more control. In addition to controlling the world's most popular web browser and the world's most popular search engine and the world's most popular online advertising network and the world's most popular online video service.
While signing is useful, leaving no escape hatch imo is blatantly predatory
As someone that was going to switch from iPhone to Android/Pixel later this year, at least now I know not to bother anymore, as the locking down of Android won't stop here.
We basically do this with everything. Unix is a great operating system, but the Mac version, made for morons, is practically unusable it's so dumbed down.
- Must enable developer mode -- some apps (e.g., banking apps) will refuse to operate and such when developer mode is on, and so if you depend on such apps, I guess you just can't sideload?
- One-day (day!!!) waiting period to activate (one-time) -- the vast majority of people who need to sideload something will probably not be willing to wait a day, and will thus just not sideload unless they really have no choice for what they need. This kills the pathway for new users to sideload apps that have similar functionality to those on the Play Store.
The rest -- restarting, confirming you aren't being coached, and per-install warnings -- would be just as effective alone to "protect users," but with those prior two points, it's clear that this is just simply intended to make sideloading so inconvenient that many won't bother or can't (dev mode req.).
Hi, I'm the community engagement manager @ Android. It's my understanding that you don't have to keep developer options enabled after you enable the advanced flow. Once you make the change on your device, it's enabled.
If you turn off developer options, then to turn off the advanced flow, you would first have to turn developer options back on.
>- One-day (day!!!) waiting period to activate (one-time) -- the vast majority of people who need to sideload something will probably not be willing to wait a day, and will thus just not sideload unless they really have no choice for what they need.
ADB installs are not impacted by the waiting period, so that is an option if you need to install certain unregistered applications immediately.
Someone is just going to make a nice GUI application for sideloading apks with a single drag-and-drop, so if your idea is that ADB is a way to ensure only "users who know what they're doing" are gonna sideload, you've done nothing. This is all security theatre.
Not applying the policy to adb installs makes a lot more sense if the people this is trying to protect don't have a computer
This just adds the step of "download Cool ABD Installer from the play store" to the set of directions I would think.
It says something about 'restart your phone and reauthenticate' that's why I'm asking. What do you autenticate?
> ADB installs are not impacted by the waiting period, so that is an option if you need to install certain unregistered applications immediately.
Um yeah but then do I have to install every update via adb? I want to just use F-Droid.
You're authenticating that you're the device owner (via your device's saved biometrics or PIN/pattern/password).
>Um yeah but then do I have to install every update via adb? I want to just use F-Droid.
No, once you go through the advanced flow and choose the option to allow installing unregistered apps indefinitely, you can both install and update unregistered apps without going through the flow again (or using ADB).
What apps are those? I've yet to run into any of my banking apps that refuse to run with developer mode enabled. I've seen a few that do that for rooted phones but that's a different story. I've been running android for a decade and a half now with developer mode turned on basically the whole time and never had an app refuse to load because of it.
Something like Github's approach of forcing users to type the name of the repo they wish to delete would seem to be more than sufficient to protect technically disinclined users while still allowing technically aware users to do what they please with their own device.
Scammers aren't going to wait on the phone for a day with your elderly parent.
"Google will call you again tomorrow to get you your refund."
There, we've successfully circumvented all of Google's security engineering on this "feature."
https://youtu.be/YIR-nJv_-VA?t=121
They don't mind being patient when they have dozens of other victims in the wait queue.
tl;dr of this post is that Google wants to lock down Android and be its gatekeeper. Every other point of discussion is just a distraction.
So Google's going to add some nonsense abstraction layer and when this fails to curb the problem after a 24 hour wait, it will be extended more maybe a week, and more information must be collected to release it. We all know how this goes.
24 is just so long.
But also, my expectation is that a scammer is going to just automate the flow here anyways. Cool, you hit the "24 hour" wait period, I'll call you back tomorrow, the next day, or the next day and continue the scam process.
It might stop some less sophisticated spammers for a little bit, but I expect that it'll just be a few tweaks to make it work again.
There will be some proportion of people who mention to their spouse/child/friend about how Google called them to fix their phone, and are saved by that waiting period.
The question is, why exactly 24 hours? The argument is that the time limit is set to protect the users and sacrifice usability to do so. So it would be prudent to set the time limit to the shortest amount that will protect the user -> and that shortest amount is apparently 24 hours, which is rather.. suspiciously long and round :)
Someone who lives in another timezone or works weird hours etc. Our routines generally repeat on 24hour schedules, so likely to be one point of overlap.
Unless you want to pick 1 week. But that's a lot more annoying.
They have infinite time and patience.
Isn't that the objective? "Reducing scams" is the same kind of argument as "what about the children"; it's supposed to make you stop thinking about what it means, because the intentions are so good.
Installing apps manually or through another store app is not "sideloading".
Sideloading is the new jaywalking, a newish word to pretend that a pretty normal action would be in any way illegal, dangerous or harmful.
I disagree with this. Won't somebody who need to sideload something will just try again the next day...
But this process seems pretty reasonable to me.
I'd like to think it is due in part to the efforts of F-Droid and others.
Waiting a day, once, to disable this protection doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I'd probably do it once when I got a phone and then forget about it.
I happen to have developer mode enabled right now, for no good reason other than I never disabled last time I needed it. Haven't had any issues with any apps.
I actually think these protections could help mitigate scammers.
If you turn off developer options, then to turn off the advanced flow, you would first have to turn developer options back on.
Enable dev mode, sideload the apk, then disable dev mode. I'd argue that it is poor security practice to keep developer mode enabled long-term on a phone that is used for everyday activities, such as banking.
JFC. Why would an app be allowed to know this? Just another datapoint for fingerprinting.
0: https://developer.android.com/reference/android/provider/Set...
At least half of the apps I use on a daily basis come from f-droid. This enforced 24-hour wait is simply not acceptable. Android has always been a far inferior overall user experience compared to iPhone. Android's _only_ saving grace was that I could put my own third-party open-source apps on it. There is nothing left keeping me on Android now.
I hope this hastens progress on a real "Linux phone" for the rest of us. Plasma Mobile (https://plasma-mobile.org) looks very nice indeed. I'll be more than happy to contribute to development and funding.
It's not a win by any means. I hope that we don't stop making noise.
It's a a defeat, albeit a minor one. The defeats will escalate until there's nothing left to lose. "Normies" don't care and the tech people who do care are fewer and further between than you'd think.
Yet, they are concerned about this.
It has nothing to do with safety, but everything to do with control.
I remember when Google disabled call recording in Android, so you no longer could record scammers. Thanks to recording I was able to get money back from insurance company that claimed they absolutely didn't sell me this and that over the phone (paid for premium insurance and got basic).
Citation needed. My Pixel 7a with the latest updates has settings for call recording in the phone app. Since I never screwed around with it, I'd assume these are the defaults:
Call recording is turned on, with "asks to record calls" set
Automatically delete recordings is "never"
Automatically record calls with non-contacts is off
No specific numbers to automatically record calls are set
There is also a note that you have to agree to their ToS to use it, and I'd also suggest being careful if you live in a jurisdiction that requires two-party consent for recording.
In any case, I'm of the opinion that if F-Droid goes, I'm basically going to treat this as a feature phone and stay away from third-party apps in general aside from "musts" like banking.
Having to wait a day for a one off isn't a big deal, if they kept it looser then you'd be shouting about the amount of scams that propagate on the platform.
Ah, its not much, just an email away ...
oh, not much it's email and a phone call away ...
Just wait 7 days ... no, it's just a month, and only one device par account? What's wrong with it? You are overreacting
Wait! Why you want to unlock your boot loader, only 0.000001% does it. You are abnormal, not the mass user
Fool me once it's on you Fool me twice ... it's on me.
We are already over twice, but none the wiser.
Helping the vulnerable should not involve that. If your only idea on how to help the vulnerable involves that, think of better ideas.
I'd say this has nothing to do with preventing scams, but to make independent software more difficult to distribute.
It's my phone. It's my software. Period.
The general population is deterred by burying a setting deep. Waiting is a dark pattern and we're not idiots.
Most of the apps on my phone are installed from F-Droid. I guess the next time I get a new phone I'll have to wait at least 24 hours for it to become useful.
I'm seriously considering Graphene for a next personal device and whatever the cheapest iOS device is for work.
Wondering how long the blogpost would be if it explained what the flow for corpoloading applications approved by Google's shareholders would be?
I understand there is some problem trying to be solved here, but honestly this is still quite frustrating for legitimate uses. If this is the direction that computing is moving, I'd really rather there were separate products available for power users/devs that reflected our different usage.
No, I'm afraid this is tipping the scale of control in Google's favor.
2) You can use ADB to immediately install unregistered apps. ADB installs are not subject to the waiting period.
I forgot 3) instruct my users how to use ADB from another computer to install my competing app. Awesome.
4) How can we install apps made by devs who won't do the verification dance with Google?
Can I keep this freedom?
I don't quite understand how those installs would be tracked. If I create a "hobbyist" account and share the apk, are the devices that install that app all reporting it to Google? To my knowledge, Google only does this through the optional Play Protect system, is that now no longer optional? I'd like to know if my computer is reporting every app I install up to Google.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...?
Edit: I've put one up there now - if there's a better article, let us know and we can change it again. I put the submitted URL in the toptext.
Yeah, I know... Stockholm syndrome...
Although I may not have to live with it, as none of my present devices are recent enough to still receive ota updates.
Context: I don't use alternative app stores. I occasionally side-load updates to apps that I've written myself, and very occasionally third party apps from trusted sources.
Now if only Android would allow for stronger sandboxing of apps (i.e. lie to them about any and all system settings).
Just call it "installing".
I don't have a Google account on my Androids. But I can't remove play services on them, sadly. As an intermediate protection I just don't sign in to Google play, that gives them at least a bit less identifying information to play with.
I hope this can be done without a Google account.
You will not need a Google account.
- You need to enable developer mode
- You need to click through a few scare dialogs
- You need to wait 24h once
I wonder how long this will last before they lock it down further. There was a lot of pushback this time around and they still ended up increasing the temperature of the metaphorical boiling frog. It still seems like they're pushing towards the Apple model where those who don't want to self-dox and/or pay get a very limited key (what Google currently calls "limited distribution accounts").
This is so overt.
Apple and Google can now credibly claim to governments to have nearly ubiquitous computing platforms that they can guarantee do not run any software that is not approved or antithetical to the goals of authorities. This makes the device safe for storing things like government IDs. OSs and Browsers will be required to present these IDs or at first just attest to them.
Before posting online, renting a server, using an app you will have to idenitfy yourself using your phone or similarly locked down PC (i.e. mac).
The introduction is under the guise as always of protecting the children. In reality they are removing your rights to privacy and free speech.
Like when Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, et al. cooperated with¹ the unconstitutional and illegal² PRISM program to hand over bulk user data to the NSA without a warrant? That kind of harm to my personal data that I did not intend?
If so, I'd love to hear an explanation of why every Google/Alphabet, Facebook/Meta, and Microsoft application haven't been removed for being malware already.
¹ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants...
² https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/us-court-mass...
More people moving to GrapheneOS is the best tool we have against Google's continued and escalating hostility to user freedom and privacy and general anti-competitive conduct. (Of course, you could ditch having a smartphone entirely..., but if you're willing to consider that you don't need me plugging an alternative).
If so, it's clear that none of these changes are actually to protect users.
I just remain skeptical that this tactic is successful on modern Android, with all the settings and scare screens you need to go through in order to sideload an app and grant dangerous permissions.
I expect scammers will move to pre-packaged software with a bundled ADB client for Windows/Mac, then the flow is "enable developer options" -> "enable usb debugging" -> "install malware and grant permissions with one click over ADB". People with laptops are more lucrative targets anyway.
That's why I don't think the extra prompts matter much beyond raising attacker cost a bit. Google is patching the visible path while the scam just moves one hop sideways.
The use case they're trying to protect against is malware authors "coaching" users to install their app.
In November, they specifically called out anonymous malware apps with the permission to intercept text messages and phone calls (circumventing two-factor authentication). https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-de...
After today's announced policy goes into effect, it will be easier to coach users to install a Progressive Web App ("Installable Web Apps") than it will be to coach users to sideload a native Android app, even if the Android app has no permissions to do anything more than what an Installable Web App can do: make basic HTTPS requests and store some app-local data. (99% of apps need no more permissions than that!)
I think Google believes it should be easy to install a web app. It should be just as easy to sideload a native app with limited permissions. But it should be very hard/expensive for a malware author to anonymously distribute an app with the permission to intercept texts and calls.
But these developer verification policies don't make any exceptions for permission-light apps, nor do they make it harder to sideload apps which request dangerous permissions, they just identify developers. I also suspect that making developer verification dependent on app manifest permissions opens up a bypass, as the package manager would need to check both on each update instead of just on first install.
And how hard/expensive should it be for the developer of a legitimate F/OSS app to intercept calls/texts?
This should not be required for apps that do HTTPS requests and store app-local data, like 99%+ of all apps, including 99% of F-Droid apps.
But, in my opinion, the benefit of anonymity to you is much smaller than the harm of anonymous malware authors coaching/coercing users to install phone-takeover apps.
(I'm sure you and I won't agree about this; I bet you have a principled stand that you should be able to anonymously distribute malware phone-takeover apps because "I own my device," and so everyone must be vulnerable to being coerced to install malware under that ethical principle. It's a reasonable stance, but I don't share it, and I don't think most people share it.)
But yes they are my devices, and I should be able to do exactly what I want with them. If I'm forced to deal with other developers incredibly shitty decisions around how they treat VoIP numbers, guess who's going to have a stack of phones with cheap plans in the office instead of paying a VoIP provider...
But no, I have no interest in actually distributing software like that further than than the phones sitting in my office.
Getting someone to verify their identity before they have the permission to completely takeover my phone feels pretty reasonable to me. It should be a cheap, one-time process to verify your identity and develop an app with that much power.
I can already hear the reply, "What a slippery slope! First Google will make you verify identity for complete phone takeovers, but soon enough they'll try to verify developer identity for all apps."
But if I'm forced to choose between "any malware author can anonymously intercept texts and calls" or "only identified developers can do that, and maybe someday Google will go too far with it," I'm definitely picking the latter.
I don't believe that it is. I follow this "scene" pretty closely, and that means I read about successful scams all the time. They happen in huge numbers. Yet I have never encountered a reliable report of one that utilized a "sideloaded"[1] malicious app. Not once. Phishing email messages and web sites, sure. This change will not help counter those, though.
I don't even see what you could accomplish with a malicious app that you couldn't otherwise. I would certainly be interested to hear of any real world cases demonstrating the danger.
[1] When I was a kid, this was called "installing."
That's why I'm inclined to believe Google is just using safety as an excuse to further leverage their monopoly.
Even though I understand the design decisions here, I think we're going about this the wrong way. Sure, users can be pressured into allowing unverified apps and installing malware, and adding a 24-hour delay will probably reduce the number of victims, but ultimately, the real solution here is user education, not technological guardrails.
If I want to completely nuke my phone with malware, Google shouldn't stand in my way. Why not just force me to read some sort of "If someone is rushing you to do this, it is probably an attack" message before letting me adjust this setting?
Anyone who ignores that warning is probably going to still fall for the scam. If anything, scammers will just communicate the new process, and it risks sounding even more legitimate if they have to go through more Google-centric steps.
Also, other commenters have mentioned that adb is unaffected by this which makes it seem like less of a problem, to me at least. Still inconvenient that even if you adb install fdroid you can't install apps directly from it.
Developers can choose to not undergo verification, thereby remaining anonymous. The only change is that their applications will need to be installed via ADB and/or this new advanced flow on certified Android devices.
Either way, you can still distribute your apps wherever you want. If you verify your identity, then there are no changes to the existing installation flow from a user perspective. If you choose not to verify your identity, then the installation will still be possible but only through high-friction methods (ADB, advanced flow). These methods are high-friction so anonymous scammers can't easily coerce their victims into installing malicious software.
Are apps like this more dangerous than browsing to a website? I thought they were entirely sandboxed from the rest of the device?
That means those apps still keep on existing, they are just more of a hassle to install.
> In addition to the advanced flow we’re building free, limited distribution accounts for students and hobbyists. This allows you to share apps with a small group (up to 20 devices) without needing to provide a government-issued ID or pay a registration fee.
i.e. Government-issued ID and fees are needed for more than 20 devices, e,g, every app on F-Droid
Note that the OP is about side loading, i.e. installing apps from non-Play Store sources and thereby circumventing developer verification.
Man, fuck Google. I hope this bullshit is struck down by government regulation as malicious compliance to 3rd party app stores.
I wonder if GrapheneOS will have the same level of user-hostile bullshit. That may be my salvation board right now.
Sailfish OS would be great, but unfortunately my banks don't seem to play along with it.
The onus of protecting people's wealth should fall on the bank / institution who manages that persons wealth.
Nevertheless, this solution is better than ID verification for devs.
It's nice that Zelle has checks and identity information shown to you when you're sending money, but if I click through 5 screens that say "Yes I know this person" but I actually don't.....no amount of regulation is going to solve that.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rant about police power and a state? Google isn't the government either. What would legislation provide that banks can't already do today?
I never said anything about it being Googles responsability, I agree it is not. And the only legislation that might be necessary over what we have is a budget directly to go after criminal fraudsters.
They're not solving that problem. They're using it as an excuse to lock down the platform further and assume more control. Any incidental benefit for user "security" is an unintended consequence of their real agenda.
I suspect they are hoping users just give up and go to the play store instead. Google touts about "Play Protect" which scans all apps on the device, even those from unknown sources so these measures can barely be justified.
Imagine if Microsoft said you need to wait 24 hours before installing a program not from their store, which is against the entire premise of windows.
Computing, I once believed was based on an open idea that people made software and you could install it freely, yes there are bad actors, but that's why we had antivirus and other protection methods, now we're inch by inch losing those freedoms. iOS wants you to enter your date of birth now.
The future feels very uncertain, but we need to protect the little freedoms we have left, once they're gone, they're gone for good.
This is the same thing since it applies to all apps, not just apps that need special permissions.