EDIT:
The process is designed to create friction. Users must first enable developer mode in system settings. They then need to confirm that they're not being coerced. After that, they need to restart their phone and reauthenticate. And then they need to wait one day.
Fuck all the way off, google
You can probably bypass the 1 day wait time by changing your system time but they really want you not do it
That's really unlikely
Works on Samsungs when they make you wait 1 week to unluck the bootloader
The process is designed to create friction. Users must first enable developer mode in system settings. They then need to confirm that they're not being coerced. After that, they need to restart their phone and reauthenticate. And then they need to wait one day.
I hope this little interview is entirely on-device. It would be terrible if installing apps of our choice on our hardware required any contact with Google (even in the background).
On device? While google services are present there? In this universe?
"Scammers rely on manufactured urgency, so this breaks their spell and gives you time to think." - Are these scams actually a real thing? I've never heard of such a thing happening, but I'm not well connected to things like people and their experiences.
it strikes me as another manufactured concern, to justify their malignent ambitions
It definitely is a thing, especially for the elderly. I'm not sure what percentage of scams are done that way, but it's much easier to scam someone if they don't have a chance to think much about what's happening.
That being said, most of the scams I know of that do this don't ask you to install an app on your phone. They just ask personal questions or for login details or something like that
most of the scams I know of that do this don’t ask you to install an app on your phone
ok, so what has blocking 'unverified' developers got to do with protecting people from scams, then? To be clear, I'm not asking if scams exist, I'm asking if scams that ask people to install dodgy apps exist. I'm extremely sceptical about this part!
On PC they'll have the user install TeamViewer. I'm assuming there's some scammers that might do this for phone
Even if they did, TeamViewer isn't a sketchy app only distributed through back-alley websites...
Pig Butchering scams typically would rely on an app for the the "investing" portion of the scam. They use apps that are in the google play store, because that comes with a belief of some level of (completely false) security and legitimacy for people that don't know better which makes people more likely to believe it is a real investing app and not a trap.
Edit: I'm not aware of any of them trying to get people to side-load apps. The average scammer is likely not able to go through the hoops required to get a random person to successfully side-load an app on Android... I am fully against this move from google on all levels, the idea that it is for security is a blatant lie. Google is doing this for control over our devices. Android, by default, blocks side-loading already without going deep into settings to enable "install unknown apps".
Google: Pull your pants down. Bend over and grab your ankles. Hold that position because this is going to take a while.
Wow, a real win here...
Have to enable developer mode, have a miniature interview, restart and reauthenticate on my device, THEN still have to wait an entire day just to install an app that Google hasn't approved.
That's not just friction, that's a brick wall!
Google can get stuffed if they expect me to believe that's for user safety, considering the amount of blatant malware and adware is already on the Playstore, threatening their user's device safety.
Hey don't make it sound so simple, after doing all that and waiting an entire day, you can't install yet. You then have to go to the settings again, answer some more questions trying to sway you away from it, confirm another scary checkbox, and only then... you will get a scary warning every single time you install an app and have to confirm every single time yet again.
Read the actual Google blog post, it's actually more convoluted than the article makes it sound.
Balance *user acceptance with *control
Chocolate Factory describes concession as an attempt to balance openess with safety
I describe the concession as an attempt to balance ending user agency with public backlash
I have a sideloaded program that hooks in as an accessibility app. Several times a week android asks me to review the programs access. Its maddening how far they go to shit on user choice.
The process is designed to create friction. Users must first enable developer mode in system settings. They then need to confirm that they're not being coerced. After that, they need to restart their phone and reauthenticate. And then they need to wait one day.
Waiting one day is totally unreasonable. However, I don't mind turning it on in developer settings.
The slippery on that slope is there are already banking and government apps that refuse to work if your phone has enabled developer options.
Here's a bike...you really wanna ride it? C'mon step on the pedals! Butt on the seat. Left hand goes on the left handle, right hand on the other handle. Okay! You're doing great! Wait for two weeks to see if you still want to ride a bike. And write me an essay about it. Close your eyes and open your mouth... Wider...wider...feel anything? Ok narrower! Narrower... Anything? A Worm?!!! How insulting! No bike for you!
I think I would call this a win. Can't imagine life without reVanced.
Unfortunately, it's not a win, mostly because enough people will think it is and stop thinking about it, let alone talking about it or pushing back.
I don't think the"normal" user installs APKs.
Sure, it's a win for power users. It's not a win at all developers trying to publish an app without getting Google's approval, since nobody is going to follow this process to install an app.
Any news that are at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies or tech policy.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.