> "dismiss more scare screens"
This whole website is a scare screen. There's a lot that is not being said on this page, such as the advantages of the new system, and the motivations of the authors of this site.
There's a reasonable discussion to be had about trade-offs here, but this is entirely one sided, in somewhat bad faith in my personal opinion.
I don't really understand your argument here, isn't Google's announcement also entirely one sided? I also don't see any "discussion" of disadvantages of their solution in their announcements. For example, the "over 50 times more malware" stat is stated without any source at all, same with "Most of your users’ download experience will not change at all" (inb4 I don't care about power users at all). Not to mention stats about scam-by-sideloaded app, anything that would suggest that the proposed solution is going to work.
The point of "keepandroidopen.org", in my understanding, is to be a quick PSA on why the author of the website thinks this is a problem with some call-to-action. It's not supposed to be a place for discussion, it's at best a discussion starter, one of the sides of the discussion to consider. Obviously they present their side, as Google has presented their side.
And anyway, how are users supposed to hold this "reasonable discussion" with a corporation? I know that Google had some sort a feedback form about this, and that they made some changes, but that is not a discussion. I didn't really actually see any "reasonable discussion" being held on this topic ever, anywhere, ever, nor do I really see how it would happen. I don't even really see a good reason for Google to hold such a discussion. It's a decision made by a corporation, about their product, after all.
Could you present your how you see this "reasonable discussion" being had? Where? How?
Sometimes reality is one sided, I personally see zero advantage to the new system.
And I don't see how this change adresses the number one source of scams, the Play Store.
Is the Play Store the number one source of scams though? It might be in absolute terms, but Google has said malware off Play is 50x higher, and clearly Google does a huge amount of work to keep scams off Play. It seems logical to have a multi-faceted approach and try to reduce malware distribution elsewhere.
It's fair to question whether the play store is the number one source of scams, but you should also question whether google actually does enough to keep scams off of Play, or is that just a pretense.
If I search for "DeepL" the first hit on the play store is "Preply" whatever that is, only the second one is actually DeepL.
When I search for ChatGPT right now on the Play Store, the first result on my phone is a counterfeit app with a fake logo, I don't think even basic diligence has been done on the play store, it's the far west.
As for the apk, of course not many people distribute legitimately this way ... because it's already too complicated! Even Fortnite couldn't make it work, so if they cannot, how can your average developer do it?
If you want more legitimate apks, the solution is to remove friction and make them easier to install.
Google has been acting in two steps here:
- first make apks too complicated for legitimate developers
- then claim that no legitimate developer use them...
I agree. I don't like the idea of Android being locked down, but the conversations around this topic are tipping into disingenuous.
Your phone is still yours, you can still install third party apps, and you can still develop apps without a verification. But now there's a one-off hurdle to install them.
Not ideal, but when we think of the people that it's trying to protect, this feels like a reasonable middle ground.
Exactly. Nuance and good faith is in desperate need here. Google hasn't been perfect here by any stretch, but they are clearly responding to feedback. This side however seems to stick its head in the sand over security, "I wouldn't fall for it therefore it's not a problem" sort of stance, which is just talking cross-purposes. By all means push back on security being a concern, but the numbers don't support this.