People should be able to write software for Android, and distribute it outside Google's Play store, without having to:
-
@illumniscate @neil It doesn't directly impact GrapheneOS. It won't have this enforcement. We'd have to go out of the way to make integration with an opt-in toggle for it and aren't interested in it rather than other approaches to verifying app authenticity/trustworthiness.
@GrapheneOS @illumniscate @neil are you guys going to be adversely impacted by the updated semi-annual release schedule for AOSP, assuming Google's still planning that change?
-
People should be able to write software for Android, and distribute it outside Google's Play store, without having to:
* pay Google
* give government ID to Google
* agree to Google terms and conditionsPeople should be able to install the software they want on their phone, from sources other than Google's Play store, without having to jump through Google-imposed hoops.
e.g. via F-Droid.
We've got until September this year to stop Google squeezing the open Android ecosystem.
@neil "You will ride a unicycle, wear a pink dress and clown shoes while developing your app!"
-
People should be able to write software for Android, and distribute it outside Google's Play store, without having to:
* pay Google
* give government ID to Google
* agree to Google terms and conditionsPeople should be able to install the software they want on their phone, from sources other than Google's Play store, without having to jump through Google-imposed hoops.
e.g. via F-Droid.
We've got until September this year to stop Google squeezing the open Android ecosystem.
@neil I remember when Apple launched the Apple Store and how I felt about it:
“Wait, what?!: do they own my device and my relationship with the people that make the software?!”
“Didn’t I pay for this thing?”
-
People should be able to write software for Android, and distribute it outside Google's Play store, without having to:
* pay Google
* give government ID to Google
* agree to Google terms and conditionsPeople should be able to install the software they want on their phone, from sources other than Google's Play store, without having to jump through Google-imposed hoops.
e.g. via F-Droid.
We've got until September this year to stop Google squeezing the open Android ecosystem.
@neil During the last five years, I spent a fairly significant amount of time developing an android app. I got a developer account and had an alpha release on the play store.
Unfortunately, personal circumstances took my focus away from it for some time, and by the time I got back to it, my account had been deleted after I hadn't responded to one of their requests.I found the sign up process unpleasant and intrusive, so the idea of going through it again is not appealing. Naturally, I thought about putting my app on another store. The idea of that company being in control of what I can provide to other people to run on their devices was enough to make me quit. I won't be releasing my work as long as this restriction is being held over us.
-
@neil During the last five years, I spent a fairly significant amount of time developing an android app. I got a developer account and had an alpha release on the play store.
Unfortunately, personal circumstances took my focus away from it for some time, and by the time I got back to it, my account had been deleted after I hadn't responded to one of their requests.I found the sign up process unpleasant and intrusive, so the idea of going through it again is not appealing. Naturally, I thought about putting my app on another store. The idea of that company being in control of what I can provide to other people to run on their devices was enough to make me quit. I won't be releasing my work as long as this restriction is being held over us.
@neil I should add: even having said all that, I can at least acknowledge that there is a case for IDs being checked before permitting apps to ship via their own store. I wish it wasn't the same company that's harvesting so much other personal data, but I do think it is preferable that apps are not published with no verified responsible person.
Once again, I'd be a lot more comfortable if identity verification could be done by a provider of my choice with only a token being passed to the store.
-
@neil I should add: even having said all that, I can at least acknowledge that there is a case for IDs being checked before permitting apps to ship via their own store. I wish it wasn't the same company that's harvesting so much other personal data, but I do think it is preferable that apps are not published with no verified responsible person.
Once again, I'd be a lot more comfortable if identity verification could be done by a provider of my choice with only a token being passed to the store.
@GerardThornley I am far less opinionated about whatever rules Google puts in place for Google's own app store.
My focus is really in ensuring that privacy respecting, alternatives exist, as this is good for both developers and users.
-
@GerardThornley I am far less opinionated about whatever rules Google puts in place for Google's own app store.
My focus is really in ensuring that privacy respecting, alternatives exist, as this is good for both developers and users.
@neil Yes, quite. And that is what I thought your view would be.
-
People should be able to write software for Android, and distribute it outside Google's Play store, without having to:
* pay Google
* give government ID to Google
* agree to Google terms and conditionsPeople should be able to install the software they want on their phone, from sources other than Google's Play store, without having to jump through Google-imposed hoops.
e.g. via F-Droid.
We've got until September this year to stop Google squeezing the open Android ecosystem.
Don't you have to agree to like 20 pages of terms and conditions before installing the sdks for android?
-
People should be able to write software for Android, and distribute it outside Google's Play store, without having to:
* pay Google
* give government ID to Google
* agree to Google terms and conditionsPeople should be able to install the software they want on their phone, from sources other than Google's Play store, without having to jump through Google-imposed hoops.
e.g. via F-Droid.
We've got until September this year to stop Google squeezing the open Android ecosystem.
@neil thanks; the CMA form for reporting this in the UK was simple and easy, like most of the gov.uk sites. Done.
-
@neil thanks; the CMA form for reporting this in the UK was simple and easy, like most of the gov.uk sites. Done.
@kw217 Excellent!
-
@GrapheneOS @illumniscate @neil Thank you for confirming that. I assume it's the same then for Murena? @gael
@j2 @GrapheneOS @illumniscate @neil @gael Please note that Murena is a scam, this is not an honest project and it's dangerous to use it. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private
-
@GrapheneOS @illumniscate @neil are you guys going to be adversely impacted by the updated semi-annual release schedule for AOSP, assuming Google's still planning that change?
@eigen @GrapheneOS @illumniscate @neil GrapheneOS is not affected by update issues, and thanks to their collaboration with a major Android OEM since June 2025, GrapheneOS can offer security preview releases. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-preview-releases
-
People should be able to write software for Android, and distribute it outside Google's Play store, without having to:
* pay Google
* give government ID to Google
* agree to Google terms and conditionsPeople should be able to install the software they want on their phone, from sources other than Google's Play store, without having to jump through Google-imposed hoops.
e.g. via F-Droid.
We've got until September this year to stop Google squeezing the open Android ecosystem.
@neil
Not saying i agree with Google. But how is the OS community going to fight the forces of evil trying to hijack our code?Between malware labs, ai slop and slop powered malware labs, i am worried. The idea of making sure real accountable humans are writing honest code seems appealing....
-
R AodeRelay shared this topic
-
@GrapheneOS @illumniscate @neil Thank you for confirming that. I assume it's the same then for Murena? @gael
@j2 @illumniscate @neil Gaël Duval has extensively spread misinformation about GrapheneOS and /e/ to falsely market his products for his for-profit company. He has engaged in extensive libel and harassment towards our team. Here's an example of him linking to harassment content based on fabrications on a blatant neo-nazi conspiracy website, which he has done repeatedly:
https://archive.is/SWXPJ
https://archive.is/n4yTOPlease don't mention him in replies to us or otherwise involve him.
-
@j2 @illumniscate @neil Gaël Duval has extensively spread misinformation about GrapheneOS and /e/ to falsely market his products for his for-profit company. He has engaged in extensive libel and harassment towards our team. Here's an example of him linking to harassment content based on fabrications on a blatant neo-nazi conspiracy website, which he has done repeatedly:
https://archive.is/SWXPJ
https://archive.is/n4yTOPlease don't mention him in replies to us or otherwise involve him.
@j2 @illumniscate @neil /e/ has poor privacy and extraordinarily bad security. It lacks basic privacy and security patches/protections. It isn't a safe option but rather is a grift not fit for purpose. Strongly recommend reading https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private and the linked sources. /e/ and Murena services are not safe and do not respect user privacy. They heavily mislead users about what's provided including relentlessly lying about highly important missing privacy/security patches/protections.
-
@j2 @illumniscate @neil /e/ has poor privacy and extraordinarily bad security. It lacks basic privacy and security patches/protections. It isn't a safe option but rather is a grift not fit for purpose. Strongly recommend reading https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private and the linked sources. /e/ and Murena services are not safe and do not respect user privacy. They heavily mislead users about what's provided including relentlessly lying about highly important missing privacy/security patches/protections.
@j2 @illumniscate @neil /e/ is a fork of LineageOS, which is far less bad but not a privacy/security hardened OS. LineageOS is based on AOSP like GrapheneOS. AOSP isn't impacted by Google Play enforced restrictions on app installations, but it has been announced those can be turned off or bypassed by power users at least initially anyway. Some people integrate Google Play with privileged access into other operating systems like LineageOS where it may be relevant but they could bypass it.
-
@GrapheneOS @illumniscate @neil are you guys going to be adversely impacted by the updated semi-annual release schedule for AOSP, assuming Google's still planning that change?
@eigen @illumniscate @neil We don't know if that's still planned and we'll be fine either way.
-
N Marianne shared this topic
