If Google is going to lock down my device to the point where I can’t install apps without their permission, I might as well dump Android and go straight to Apple. I sacrificed my phone being good for the openness of the platform, but if Google loses that openness, why shouldn’t I go with Apple?
Openness isn’t just a nice to have. It is essential.
The difference between general purpose computing and gatekept walled garden computing is night and day.
Identifying the devs is not in the “need to know” for Google. Google sells or helps to sell a general purpose open device where it is on us to exploit that device however we will.
Now Google wants to switch to a walled garden, moderated development model.
If Google promises it won’t use those dev IDs to moderate development, their promise is only worth the wind it moves and the sound it makes.
now while at first view, your sentiment is understandable, i actually kinda differ.
when you buy any product at any store, i believe that there has to be a legal entity behind the store that sells you this product, and the legal entity needs to be identifiable. i.e. if you run a shop and give packages to people, you need to show ID to open up that shop. i believe it is the same for charity organizations which give away packages for free.
now, why would it be different for apps? apps are software packages, and if they’re given away, there should be a legal entity behind it that is identifiable. this isn’t to surveil or suppress people, it’s just how business has always been done, and for good reason so. businesses need legal representatives to operate, even if it’s a charity, because otherwise there’s nobody to “talk to” when there’s issues, and also imposters would have an easy game.
that doesn’t mean that you can’t donate packages away on the streets. just put it in front of your front door and wait until somebody passes by and takes it, or give it directly into the hands of your friends, you don’t need to open a business for that. just, if you do it regularly, interacting with people you don’t personally know, there is a legal entity that represents that recurring activity, like a business or charity.
If i understand it correctly, even with the new changes, what can be done is that open software distribution sites like F-Droid can sign the packages instead of the original developers and therefore circumvent the identification of the original developers, and also you can still install unsigned third-party apps if you enter a command on the command line to disable ID certificate checking. it’s just an extra step, not a block-all.
This change requires you to attach your real name when publishing software. That’s all. You can still publish to and install packages from anywhere. This doesn’t come close to Apple’s complete control.
Google already scans packages you’re installing for malware and alerts you and allows you to install them anyway. This gives that scanner one more tool to identify bad actors.
If Google is going to lock down my device to the point where I can’t install apps without their permission, I might as well dump Android and go straight to Apple. I sacrificed my phone being good for the openness of the platform, but if Google loses that openness, why shouldn’t I go with Apple?
Openness isn’t just a nice to have. It is essential.
The difference between general purpose computing and gatekept walled garden computing is night and day.
Identifying the devs is not in the “need to know” for Google. Google sells or helps to sell a general purpose open device where it is on us to exploit that device however we will.
Now Google wants to switch to a walled garden, moderated development model.
If Google promises it won’t use those dev IDs to moderate development, their promise is only worth the wind it moves and the sound it makes.
You might say their words are like farts in the wind
We don’t even need to assume: https://torrentfreak.com/apple-revokes-eu-distribution-rights-for-torrent-client-developer-left-in-the-dark/
now while at first view, your sentiment is understandable, i actually kinda differ.
when you buy any product at any store, i believe that there has to be a legal entity behind the store that sells you this product, and the legal entity needs to be identifiable. i.e. if you run a shop and give packages to people, you need to show ID to open up that shop. i believe it is the same for charity organizations which give away packages for free.
now, why would it be different for apps? apps are software packages, and if they’re given away, there should be a legal entity behind it that is identifiable. this isn’t to surveil or suppress people, it’s just how business has always been done, and for good reason so. businesses need legal representatives to operate, even if it’s a charity, because otherwise there’s nobody to “talk to” when there’s issues, and also imposters would have an easy game.
that doesn’t mean that you can’t donate packages away on the streets. just put it in front of your front door and wait until somebody passes by and takes it, or give it directly into the hands of your friends, you don’t need to open a business for that. just, if you do it regularly, interacting with people you don’t personally know, there is a legal entity that represents that recurring activity, like a business or charity.
If i understand it correctly, even with the new changes, what can be done is that open software distribution sites like F-Droid can sign the packages instead of the original developers and therefore circumvent the identification of the original developers, and also you can still install unsigned third-party apps if you enter a command on the command line to disable ID certificate checking. it’s just an extra step, not a block-all.
This change requires you to attach your real name when publishing software. That’s all. You can still publish to and install packages from anywhere. This doesn’t come close to Apple’s complete control.
Google already scans packages you’re installing for malware and alerts you and allows you to install them anyway. This gives that scanner one more tool to identify bad actors.