For the past 15 years, F-Droid has provided a safe and secure haven for Android users around the world to find and install free and open source apps. When co...
  • amos@mander.xyzEnglish
    2·
    16 days ago

    Considering Google and Apple both donate to Trump, we really need an alternative: Linux mobile OS. A linux OS that can be installed on a range of phones, from cheap to more expensiove. Just buy the phone and install the OS, as you do on PCs.

  • comrade_twisty@feddit.org
    2·
    17 days ago

    This is something the EU should really regulate, unfortunately they are busy regulating oat milk drink and veggieburgers.

    • persona_non_gravitas@piefed.socialEnglish
      3·
      17 days ago

      I contacted the EU DMA team a while back. Part of the response:

      We have taken note of your concerns and, while we cannot comment on ongoing dialogue with gatekeepers, these considerations will form part of our assessment of the justifications for the verification process provided by Google.

      So at least some part of the bureaucracy are aware of it.

    • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
      1·
      17 days ago

      1. The EU hasn’t even been able to stop Apple from doing this shit.

      2. The EU is actively preventing their own people from leaving the Google ecosystem with the Play Integrity API in their own apps.

    • mistermodal@lemmy.ml
      0·
      17 days ago

      I’m confused why so many open source developers think that the EU is going to be the foster parents of FOSS communities

  • nieminen@lemmy.world
    1·
    17 days ago

    I honestly didn’t realize how the fdroid deployment worked, and now I’m gonna be way less skeptical of apps I see there.

      • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
        0·
        17 days ago

        Even on GrapheneOS, sure it uses a sandboxed Google Play Store, which is obviously great for users, but the developers of Android apps still have to hand over their personal data to Google specifically as this new decree from the Lords of the Google fiefdom entails.

        Because FOSS developers rightly value their personal privacy, this decree effectively kills incentive for FOSS developers to continue making and maintaining apps for Android. Running GrapheneOS doesn’t circumvent this.

        It’s like I’m saying “I’m hungry” and you say “Go for a run, it’s healthy for you.” I mean… it’s true that running is healthy… but the act of running doesn’t solve the problem of me being hungry…

          • jkYkM7a@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            17 days ago

            Too, you can shove Google into its own separate User from everything else and keep it locked down in an always on VPN or the like. You don’t owe it the primary user on your phone. You can even keep that user shutdown such that none of it runs until you explicitly switch over and run it.

            GrapheneOS is pretty dang impressive.

        • comrade_twisty@feddit.org
          0·
          17 days ago

          I use FOSS apps for everything, I only have one special user profile with google play store for my stupid bank and credit card.

          For everything else there are alternatives that don’t need google play.

          • Chulk@lemmy.mlEnglish
            01·
            17 days ago

            I think you’re missing the point. You say you use FOSS apps for everything. Do you download them from F-Droid?

            From the article:

            The future of this elegant and proven system was put in jeopardy last month, when Google unilaterally decreed that Android developers everywhere in the world are going to be required to register centrally with Google. In addition to demanding payment of a registration fee and agreement to their (non-negotiable and ever-changing) terms and conditions, Google will also require the uploading of personally identifying documents, including government ID, by the authors of the software, as well as enumerating all the unique “application identifiers” for every app that is to be distributed by the registered developer.

            The F-Droid project cannot require that developers register their apps through Google, but at the same time, we cannot “take over” the application identifiers for the open-source apps we distribute, as that would effectively seize exclusive distribution rights to those applications.

            If it were to be put into effect, the developer registration decree will end the F-Droid project and other free/open-source app distribution sources as we know them today, and the world will be deprived of the safety and security of the catalog of thousands of apps that can be trusted and verified by any and all. F-Droid’s myriad users will be left adrift, with no means to install — or even update their existing installed — applications. (How many F-Droid users are there, exactly? We don’t know, because we don’t track users or have any registration: “No user accounts, by design”)

            • comrade_twisty@feddit.org
              0·
              17 days ago

              I get my apps through Obtainium. I usually find the developers pages where they publish source code and the apk and then add them to Obtainium and install from there and let it manage the updates.

              Most of the apps I use are also available on f-droid and some probably have play store versions as well.

      • cardfire@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        17 days ago

        Samsung s22 and s25, checking in. Graphene won’t be viable for the vast, overwhelming majority of Android users today or in the coming seasons.

        I hope people figure out some kind of virtualization/docker-containerization solution to the coming Goo-lag.

        • Ferk@lemmy.ml
          0·
          17 days ago

          Samsung s22 and s25

          I’m still holding some hope that maybe Samsung’s flavor of the OS won’t have the restriction of requiring Google keys. Specially considering that Samsung has its own “Galaxy Store” with app submissions controlled by them, not Google.

          Though it’s possible they might simply extend the signatures accepted to include also the ones signed by them ^^U …still it would give them a competitive edge to remove the restriction so they might be incentivized to do it.

          • d-RLY?@lemmy.ml
            1·
            12 days ago

            Would be nice, but I imagine that Samsung would both need to actually be impacted in an meaningful way with their store, and find some way to prevent Play Services (which they have to meet requirements to be able to load on their devices) from just nope-ing non-registered apps. Both of which I seriously doubt would happen.

            They have already been working pretty close with Google on things that removed their actual Tizen OS from stuff like their watches in favor of merging their code into Android Wear OS. Would also guess that they might just work something out to either force apps on their store to be signed by Samsung and cleared by Google. Or that they just require apps on their store to only be listed after registering with Google. Not like Samsung really cares about supporting side-loading if the apps aren’t in their (or Google’s) store.

            Sadly I think only a OEM like Samsung would have the massive levels of hardware sales and money for making a real fight against Google. F-Droid and other alt-stores or projects lack both and are easy to ignore. If Samsung were to be actually concerned about this, then I think we would have already seen them filing lawsuits and pushing posts/news articles condemning Google’s plans like F-Droid keeps doing (aside from lawsuits due to money).

            • Ferk@lemmy.ml
              2·
              11 days ago

              You are probably right… it’s just one hope I had, I’m not expecting it to happen, but I’ll be hopeful until the end.

              Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

              • d-RLY?@lemmy.ml
                1·
                10 days ago

                Nothing wrong with finding small hopes here and there where you can. I too had briefly thought about Samsung’s store (I have an S24 Ultra, Tab S8+, and my old S20+) maybe being large and known enough by more users than F-Droid. But their lack of press releases pushing back on Google was what told me enough. If Samsung’s store was actively used more than the Play Store on their phones (and had enough really popular apps that weren’t also on the Play Store), then it would at least be something.

                Sadly even if Samsung’s store is able to somehow get a pass by Google, I highly doubt that the devs of apps that are only on F-Droid would list them on there. And would still only help Samsung devices (though I know I would start using Samsung’s store a lot more if those devs did list them on there). Though I might find reasons to use my S20+ for some apps that I like having but don’t use daily, and my tablet is on Android 15 so it will be used for stuff I use more often (never thought I would be excited for it to not get major updates).

                The main actively used daily app that I am dreading losing (due to the current dev not planning to ever list their active fork on Play Store) is SyncThing-Fork on my Android devices (use different SyncThing apps for PC/Steam Deck). It has been the only multi-platform sync program that actually works correctly for my password vault on my Android devices. Though it is possible that the dev might get it whitelisted, but I am not going to hold my breath. As the main dilemma on a per app level is that the more apps that fall in line ends up supporting Google’s actions, but at the same time not getting whitelisted means just going away (at least on fully updated Android 16+ devices).

          • Kevin@lemmy.ca
            0·
            17 days ago

            If they want a lot of play store banking apps + other things that opt into play protect to work they’ll need to add the signature verification requirement.

            • Ferk@lemmy.ml
              0·
              16 days ago

              Will the banks in Korea, EU and many other areas where Samsung phones are very common keep that restriction if it meant alienating that many users? I doubt it. That’s why I think the support of a big player on this would be a killing move.

              Also I’m not 100% convinced that it’s impossible to have some verification without it depending on this one change.

              • Kevin@lemmy.ca
                1·
                16 days ago

                That’s a really good point, basically throw their weight around a bit eh?

        • Zetta@mander.xyz
          1·
          16 days ago

          All my banking apps and credit card apps have worked flawlessly on Graphene OS. You’re correct that tap to pay doesn’t work, which is a bummer. But that is just Google spyware as well, honestly.

          I heard about this a while ago, but I remember the GrapheneOS team talking about suing Google if they didn’t allow them to pass play integrity checks like they should be able to, but Google just doesn’t let them. That’s the only reason tap to pay doesn’t work and some baking apps have issues, its Google purposefully limiting graphene OS so they have a competitive edge somewhere.

    • Catalyst@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      17 days ago

      There’s nothing set in stone yet. Google just committed to doing it is all that’s happened so far. But the response against it has been pretty heavy and we’ll see how it goes. We have to speak up right now and organize our communities like this post is doing.