Google to block sideloading of apps starting next year.

[alonehentain]

this still in beta, dev has to gather enough feedback to make them change from block to only warn ( still block flagged malware), right now the concern is enough for that

 

[Nick_1357]

I'm genuinely surprised Google didn't say that one of the reasons why they're doing this is to protect kids. Y'know just like how great censorship efforts that happen.

 

[alonehentain]

and here is a official blog about this :

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Count Morado]

What a lazy and contrived question.

Hmm I don't know, what could possibly be the issue with a corporation placing more obstacles for creators and restricting user autonomy? Surely this is 100% good news and is not at risk of leading to any sort of content regulation or abuse of power by denying certain authors access to the platform. Nonsense, the pitfalls here are obvious.

Lazy? No. The person who presented this offered lazy reasons. Just like those who followed up with sky-is-falling narrative.
Contrived? Meh. Deliberate? Yes. Because of the initial take of the OP and the conspiracy responses, as well as the hyperbole used in your and other's responses.

Never did I say it was 100% good news. I asked why it was "serious bad stuff" --- and have as of yet seen an answer which supports that narrative.

Again, if they wanted content regulation or abuse of powers --- all they would have to do is ban all sideloading, period, just like Apple. Yet, that's exactly what they aren't doing. At least, not yet. But that people such as yourself, and a couple of other Henny Pennys in the thread, have leapt before looking - show paranoia and conspiratorial minds telling more about themselves than about the intent of the change.

 

[MLocke]

By comparison, code signing (author identity) on Windows is a ripoff. It costs almost $500 USD / year, and you still need to wait for Windows Defender to figure out if you are a threat. So, what is really the purpose? It's the same idea as paying for X to prove you are a somebody, even though the cost is trivial. That didn't improve discourse.

Some people really need to brush up on the history of censorship and big tech. Big tech goes along with certain ideologies and not because someone forced them to. There's so many things people do not want to address directly on this forum, and there are others that no matter what happens, it's just another SNAFU they need to downplay.

 

[F4C430]

Edit: If Google doesn't backpedal, this will probably be the death of Android.

Lol no it won't. Just like all the changes MS does to Windows isn't the death of Windows. What are you going to switch to? Apple? The idiotPhone is even worse.

Besides, people are already speculating possible work arounds like installing apps using ADP. It wouldn't be ideal but could be something at least. If anything, this could be a boost to another player in the phone OS market that isn't Chinese. Unlikely, but possible. I saw

You must be registered to see the links

mentioned as an example.

 

[anne O'nymous]

If anything, this could be a boost to another player in the phone OS market that isn't Chinese. Unlikely, but possible.

If it do, it will only apply for power users. I don't see a mobile device manufacturer say that they switched their OS because of the last security level adopted by Google.

 

[Essta]

I asked why it was "serious bad stuff"

Its yet another stone in the wall of restricting user freedom, of the castle "users serve the corporations, not the other way around". It invidually probably isnt "serious bad stuff" but i see this, and many other things, and the overall tendendy with corporations the last decade and then some people just dont seem to care and only one image comes to mind: That of a frog in a pot of water.

All these things happen because someone, somewhere, decided they know better than you what you should see and do. And so they take the choice away from you. Is it for begnin reasons? For malice? For greed? It doesnt matter, the end result is that you're a less free man.


Why should Google do more than warn users that unverified sideloaded apps are risky because google cannot vouch for their safety and content? This is literally the Microsoft appstore again, on Windows devices. Microsoft tried to force all programm installs on Windows to go trough the Microsoft appstore, for your supposed safety. Was that really the primary concern? I dont really think so. Just as much as i dont think it is Googles primary concern with sideloading. I dont think its for censorship, i think the actual reason is quite banal: It'll eventually make them more money, so some bean counter argued, either directly by having the verification cost a lot of money (Hi Apple!), requiring specific hardware (Hi Apple! Again!), discouraging bypassing the app store and with that the commission and quite possibly, a more captive audience.

 

[Count Morado]

Its yet another stone in the wall of restricting user freedom, of the castle "users serve the corporations selling the devices, not the other way around". It invidually probably isnt "serious bad stuff" but i see this, and many other things, and the overall tendendy with corporations the last decade and then some people just dont seem to care and only one image comes to mind: That of a frog in a pot of water.

It is not another stone in the wall of restricting user freedom.

In fact, it could be seen as a stone of defense for users of Android devices.
At the current time, there is nothing that connects devs to their APKs that end up being sideloaded onto devices by users who think they need the APK (either for porn or utilities, or whatever) - but either cannot or will not get them from the Play Store. As such, devs of APKs that are sideloaded face no accountability for their APKs if the APKs end up being malicious (either intentionally or not).
By devs verifying their identity - if their APKs cause problems - Google can restrict those APKs from causing problems on a greater scale.

It's not frog in a pot of water with the heat being slowly turned up.

And it isn't about users serving the corporations selling the devices. It could easily be seen as making sure the devs serve the users.

I am not saying the vast majority of devs are malicious --- but there is a small percentage of devs which have created this issue that needed a solution. Google could have chosen Apple's way - locking down all ability to sideload for anyone anywhere on their devices --- again, they did not. At least not yet.

 

[Essta]

It is not another stone in the wall of restricting user freedom.
-snip-
Google can restrict those APK.

You can see it yourself right? Previously i could choose myself if i wanted to take the risk (of installing unsigned apps). Now Google takes the choice away from me. Where there was no restriction there now is, where was choice there now isnt. And so your argument falls flat on its face.

We can argue about the rest of course, the why and if its bad, but this particular part? Thats a objective fact.

 

[Count Morado]

You can see it yourself right? Previously i could choose myself if i wanted to take the risk (of installing unsigned apps). Now Google takes the choice away from me. Where there was no restriction there now is, where was choice there now isnt. And so your argument falls flat on its face.

We can argue about the rest of course, the why and if its bad, but this particular part? Thats a objective fact.

Except your choice of taking the risk not only puts yourself in jeopardy, but others, as well. As malicious code is many times made to spread like a virus to other contacts in a person's device by stealthly hiding behind the person's identity. I can go further - but no - my argument does not fall flat. Sorry. If you want to do that - make sure your android device is completely isolated from the internet and not used to interact with anyone else. Otherwise, you become a point of spread of the infection, yourself.

And no, it's not an "objective fact" -- it is your personal opinion. Just like my argument is from my personal opinion. And THAT is an objective fact.

 

[Essta]

And no, it's not an "objective fact" -- it is your personal opinion. Just like my argument is from my personal opinion. And THAT is an objective fact.

You're arguing that the choice being taken away (because its bad) is not being taken away at all. Which is faulty logic, there is choice being taken away, no way around that.
A more honest statement is that you think it is a good thing to restrict user choice (and thus freedom) for safety, which i recognize as being your subjective opinion, one that i disagree with, in this particular case.

For i believe that the recent advances where corporations lock down things and control more and more of our media consumption and how we interact not just with the world but each other, is a very troublesome trend and that this is just one small tiny piece of it. And yes, that also is a subjective opinion.

And so id like to welcome you to argue about the why and if its bad instead.

 

[MLocke]

There's always going to be compromised devices on the Internet. There will likely be more than ever with proprietary IoT devices. There will likely be more risk of compromise on the average, uninformed user's device even if it's locked down. It's called infinite stupidity. Taking away choice isn't helping, and you are basically going to hand a corporation their walled garden. A compromise might be to add extra steps to unlock third party apps as a high barrier of entry, but that's all you can really do.

I can't wait for neural interfaces that we have no control over, and they constantly upload ads to "us" because people had to make the the most foolish arguments possible as to why you go along to get along. We just forgot that you can own hardware and software.

 

[ToeLintSwallower]

Just like those who followed up with sky-is-falling narrative.

Ah yes the dreaded sky is falling narrative, these irrational users just don't understand. It's not like there is a clear direction things are headed towards when it comes to censorship, especially for adult games. Add them to the list alongside the steam, itchio, and UK censorship conspiracy wackos. Didn't you use this same analogy for those topics? Your agenda to dismiss valid issues is apparent.

Skew whatever lousy perspective you want, it's clear that a vetting tool is being introduced that opens the door that can now allow google or other companies/banks to pressure the removal of certain content even if its not the intended purpose. Its a fantastic first step towards that path.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Its yet another stone in the wall of restricting user freedom, of the castle "users serve the corporations, not the other way around".

This is in no way a restriction of users freedom, nor one of creators freedom. At no time did Google said that they'll restrict who can make an app, nor did they said that some kind of apps will not be allowed.
All they said is that, starting next year, app creators will have to assume their creation, period.
No more anonymous voluntarily compromised apps to scam users, steal their private data, and so on. It will not make those apps fully disappear, but it will make it way more difficult to operate them since, at any time, it will be possible to trace who made it.
If your favorite adult game stop to have an android version because of this, the responsible will be its creator, who decided to not follow the new process, not Google that decided to protect Android users.

Why should Google do more than warn users that unverified sideloaded apps are risky because google cannot vouch for their safety and content?

Because four decades of cybersecurity have proved that it doesn't works. And it's not because you're so marvelous that you know better than the average human being, that the said average human being do not deserve to be protected.

I dont really think so.

There's a word too many in this sentence.

Just as much as i dont think it is Googles primary concern with sideloading. I dont think its for censorship, i think the actual reason is quite banal: It'll eventually make them more money,

They'll not make this much money just because now all android app creators will have to pay the US$ 25 one-time registration fee.

so some bean counter argued, either directly by having the verification cost a lot of money (Hi Apple!),

Google's registration process exist since more than a decade, and the price haven't really changed since its creation.

requiring specific hardware (Hi Apple! Again!),

"A note for student and hobbyist developers: we know your needs are different from commercial developers, so we’re creating a separate type of Android Developer Console account for you." [source:

You must be registered to see the links

]

discouraging bypassing the app store [...]

What is illegal in EU.

 

[Mommysbuttslut]

This is in no way a restriction of users freedom, nor one of creators freedom. At no time did Google said that they'll restrict who can make an app, nor did they said that some kind of apps will not be allowed.
All they said is that, starting next year, app creators will have to assume their creation, period.
No more anonymous voluntarily compromised apps to scam users, steal their private data, and so on. It will not make those apps fully disappear, but it will make it way more difficult to operate them since, at any time, it will be possible to trace who made it.
If your favorite adult game stop to have an android version because of this, the responsible will be its creator, who decided to not follow the new process, not Google that decided to protect Android users.

You literally just described a restriction of freedom. I can currently download and install any APK off the internet and assume the risk and responsibility to any unwanted consequences of that. Under the proposed change that's no longer the case. That's a restriction of a currently available freedom.

As for the developer verification you've got to be incredibly naive to believe that Google will be doing this for free. I'm sure it will launch as a free service for hobbyist developers but sooner or later they're going to move it to a paid subscription service to continually confirm verification of the developer. There's no way that google's going to be willing to provide the manpower and oversight for a free service to verify the identity of app developers who are developing specifically outside of google's own paid ecosystem where they won't be able to profit from. They're a multi billion dollar corporation, not some magnanimous entity looking to save the internet from itself. So once that rolls out a brand new dev with a fresh 0 patrons/subscribers isn't going to be able to release an APK without first paying for the verification, which is just going to mean less options for mobile users and less revenue for devs at the start of their development.

 

[kvlar]

I really don't see how anyone in good conscience can say this is a good thing this will inevitability lead to more censorship for example a company/bank/government really doesn't like a certain app they can now pressure Google to revoke a developer certificate and now the app can no longer be installed on android for example Nintendo pressuring google to block the certificate switch emulation app

a company/government removing the privacy of a developer by forcing google to reveal the owner or a app /certificate

another company/government pressuring google to remove the certificate of a developer of a torrent client app or piracy app

banks/payment processors pressuring google to remove the certificate of adult game developers

 

[anne O'nymous]

You literally just described a restriction of freedom. I can currently download and install any APK off the internet and assume the risk and responsibility to any unwanted consequences of that. Under the proposed change that's no longer the case. That's a restriction of a currently available freedom.

Any individual freedom stop where other's rights starts.

Average Android users have the right to be protected against threats they don't understand, and this right is precisely where your freedom to install whatever you want stop.
Said otherwise, what you talk about isn't freedom, it's called selfishness.

As for the developer verification you've got to be incredibly naive to believe that Google will be doing this for free. [...]

Hey, fghcvq shpxvat vqvbg, it is highly recommended to read the post you answer too.
Just in case it explicitly state that the registration need a US$ 25 one-time fee, and that the said registration process exist since more than a decade.

hint: It do...

 

[Mommysbuttslut]

Any individual freedom stop where other's rights starts.

Average Android users have the right to be protected against threats they don't understand, and this right is precisely where your freedom to install whatever you want stop.
Said otherwise, what you talk about isn't freedom, it's called selfishness.

Average android users are already protected. In order to install an APK you have to go into your device settings, turn the option on, read through and agree to a disclaimer that you do so at your own risk. That's more protection than Windows has ever provided to prevent unsigned app usage and if they started blocking it then there'd be even more of an uproar. System and user security have always been the user's responsibility. If you're not even willing to install a free antivirus for your device then that's entirely on you as the user.

Hey, fghcvq shpxvat vqvbg, it is highly recommended to read the post you answer too.
Just in case it explicitly state that the registration need a US$ 25 one-time fee, and that the said registration process exist since more than a decade.

hint: It do...

For now. If you think Google's going to maintain that for users developing outside of their release ecosystem then as I said, you're naive. Google has motivation to keep the entry requirements low for users developing apps for the play store. They make money from the play store. If they can't make money from people developing outside of that ecosystem then they're going to find a different way to. This isn't going to remain some benign issue.

On top of all of that, there are still fully free devs with no crowd funding at all. Should they really have to pay a verification fee to release a game that they created with no intent to profit or even recoup investment?

 

[Essta]

Any individual freedom stop where other's rights starts.

To quote myself:
"You're arguing that the choice being taken away (because its bad) is not being taken away at all. Which is faulty logic, there is choice being taken away, no way around that.
A more honest statement is that you think it is a good thing to restrict user choice (and thus freedom) for safety."

Its strange how the two supporters of this change are being so disingenous about it, but both also consistently are some of the most grating users on this forum so go figure. (Yes i also can do ad hominems and no that doesnt make any argument any better!)