Android

If Google is going to turn Android into iPhone, why tf I shouldn't get an iPhone itself?

I don't think it's quite a bad as the title implies, though I wonder how long this slow process of locking down Android will contained for. Hopefully the EU demands from the likes of Epic will stop too much control being taken away from the user.

POV: You're Google and think EU didn't fine you enough lately.

This is why I decided to not use Google services this Graphene install. I have zero doubt Google is going to try and lock down the ability to use anything outside of the PlayStore in an IOS type move. Just hope a better Linux based phone gets done quickly because I'm not sure how many iterations of alternate Android OS generations will be able to exist as they lock things down.

all it does is prevent sideloaded apps from having access to sensitive permissions by default, which is a good thing.

Sideloading is the only reason i use android over ios...

Personally, I like the first one and wouldn't use an option to automatically give those permissions to all apps.

Being a power user doesn't make anyone immune from malware, it just needs to pass some sniff tests. It was by luck that that backdoor in the Linux kernel was found and it's naive to believe every single malware app is going to be obvious with unrealistic promises and/or bad grammar and spelling. Permissions requests are a clue that an app is doing something it shouldn't be. And Facebook is considered trusted by many despite an insider even confirming the "talk about something near your phone and fb will advertise it to you" being real.

When you download an app, unless you either wrote it yourself (including all libraries) or have checked the source for open source apps (again including libraries), you can only guess at what it is really doing. And just because an app does what it claims to do doesn't mean it isn't doing anything else, so the "well, it does work" test isn't a great security test.

For the app developers being able to block side loading, it says it uses meta data to enforce that. Couldn't modders just modify that meta data so that it doesn't realize X' app is actually a modified X app? It would need to do something more complex than a checksum or hash to detect it's the same app.

I mean, I love "fuck Google" bandwagons, but either I'm missing something or this one doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

I've been an Android user since the HTC Desire in 2010.

I'm unsure what the author of the article is advocating, since the "raw deal" appears to be geared towards making the Android environment more secure.

The author laments that they now have to manually enable security bypass settings and that some (they call it developers, but I'm not sure if they're referring to Application Development or Phone Platform Development) "developers" can lock down with further API checks.

I've been an ICT professional for over 40 years and security is always a balance. On the one end it looks like a phone in a locked room, inaccessible to anyone, on the other end it's a free-for-all, open to anyone.

I'm not at all sure what the author wants, except for wanting to roll back time to something less secure.

Will the permissions still be allowable by goinv to the app info page from the settings, clicking the 3 dot menu in the corner and taping to allow restricted settings?

Now I'm actually glad I'm stuck on Android 13.

Anything short of "it's your device, it obeys you" is theft.