Android
DROID DOES
Welcome to the droidymcdroidface-iest, Lemmyest (Lemmiest), test, bestest, phoniest, pluckiest, snarkiest, and spiciest Android community on Lemmy (Do not respond)! Here you can participate in amazing discussions and events relating to all things Android.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules
1. All posts must be relevant to Android devices/operating system.
2. Posts cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
3. No spam, self promotion, or upvote farming. Sources engaging in these behavior will be added to the Blacklist.
4. Non-whitelisted bots will be banned.
5. Engage respectfully: Harassment, flamebaiting, bad faith engagement, or agenda posting will result in your posts being removed. Excessive violations will result in temporary or permanent ban, depending on severity.
6. Memes are not allowed to be posts, but are allowed in the comments.
7. Posts from clickbait sources are heavily discouraged. Please de-clickbait titles if it needs to be submitted.
8. Submission statements of any length composed of your own thoughts inside the post text field are mandatory for any microblog posts, and are optional but recommended for article/image/video posts.
Community Resources:
We are Android girls*,
In our Lemmy.world.
The back is plastic,
It's fantastic.
*Well, not just girls: people of all gender identities are welcomed here.
Our Partner Communities:
view the rest of the comments
Seems that google's announced plans to restrict sideloading on Android are now in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's order to open the Play Store to alternative app stores and reduce its control over app distribution.
How will this play out in the end... ๐ค
Don't call it "sideloading" it's a negative term attempting to make rebrand installing unapproved apps taboo ands illegal by effect. Call it what it is, installing apps. Thats it.
I like this way of thinking right here.
with a $500m check made out directly to the commander in sleep
No, that's illegal. They'll make it out to the Trump Presidential Library
To be clear, it's not the Supreme Court's order, they only declined the appeal or to issue a stay, so technically it is a "regular" court order, which is just as binding.
Not at all, they can still require apps to be signed, so long as you're free to allow app installations. They'll weasel out by saying the signing is for safety/security reasons, to avoid malware and shit.
Right and then they might well lose the next antitrust suit for weaseling around. Judges know what this kind of behavior means, though who can say how they'll react.
The timing is too perfect, the effects are too apparent.
So this means they'll take responsibility for malware and offer support, right? Right?
So one dev can sign off on f-droid and then we're fine as long as we use that in stead of the play store?
Nope. No apk you can get a hold of will be installable without googles over the internet check. At current it looks like you'll be able to force an install using adb shell commands, but that will effectively gut almost anyone from installing an unsigned apk. Also, Google would be able to remove even that option if they so choose.
The OS will probably check the signature of any app you're trying to install regardless of if it's from F-Droid or the Play Store
No, as it stands this is the end of F-Droid. Each developer registration must include the manifest IDs of all apps they publish. No way F-droid can include all the apps they publish in their registration.
I was wondering if these 2 things will be somehow connected ๐ค