back
889 comments
Respectfully, I think this is the wrong fight. And I fear it may be counter-productive, because all the effort put into asking Google to make it a little less painful to install an unverified app is not put into the real fight.

IMHO, it should be fine for Google or Apple to do whatever they want with their OS. What should be forbidden is to prevent people from installing an alternative OS on their hardware. But this is not all Google's doing there: all the Android manufacturers are actively preventing users from doing it.

When I buy an Android phone, I should be able to unlock the bootloader, add custom signing keys, install whatever OS I choose, and relock the bootloader. Interestingly, currently this is possible on Google Pixels, but not on most other Android devices.

When I use an Android phone, a company building an app should not be allowed to ban my OS "because it is not the Google OS". That is, using Play Integrity or whatever they do to ban alternative OSes should be forbidden. But again, this is not entirely Google's fault: the companies choose to add those checks in their ** app. And it is a bigger problem there, because while I can install an alternative OS on my Android device (e.g. GrapheneOS or LineageOS), I can NOT install an alternative client for e.g. my bank.

Back to side-loading: really it's mostly a problem for F-Droid on Stock Android, as far as I can see. And really, people who care about using F-Droid would probably be happy to use an alternative OS, if it was reasonably possible. We should fight for that.

ARM doesn't have any initialization/boot standard enforced on phone manufacturers so everyone is doing their own and never upstreams anything. It's a general ARM problem. PC with some lucky coincidence avoided that fate and we got used to it. RISC-V is in even worse shape than ARM as the fragmentation is even at the CPU instruction level. Both ARM and RISC-V have some discussions/proposed standards but nothing enforced anywhere.
This should apply not only to phones. Every device with CPU and programmable memory should allow user to reprogram it. However, the user may waive this right for purpose of theft protection.
> Respectfully, I think this is the wrong fight.

Respectfully, no.

There are no mainstream OS alternatives. You're standing up to fight for 0.000001% of users and leaving everyone else stuck.

Fighting to win our phones back is fighting for the 99.99999%.

These devices are the most important part of everyone's digital world. Certainly the non-technical folks. You can't even order food at restaurants anymore without them. You can't date or socialize as a young person without one. It's becoming your state-issued ID. It's everything.

And two companies control everything you do.

They need to be stripped of all of their power to constrain these devices. Once you buy the device, it's yours.

These belong to society. Not the two giant monopolies that won a battle decades ago and forever get to sit atop their pile of gold like dragons. They should never be able to dictate the world downstream, and certainly not with the authority they have today.

Web installs. No scare walls. No hidden menu settings. First class distribution and support for web sans app store. No ability for these companies to strong arm.

They're taxing all of human innovation. Any time you want to reach someone, they stand in the way. They ask for 30%, they mandate the tech, the updates, they divorce you from choosing payments, login, your ability to talk to your customer.

As a consumer this means new tech companies can't start and grow big and fight the incumbents. The incumbents can move anywhere and dump on it. They can put a ceiling on outside innovation and copy or acquire it on the cheap.

All of tech is becoming a lock and shackle authoritarian regime with permanently fixed leaders, ossified tech, and banana republic fleecing of everything new. This is bad for consumers and freedom and innovation.

Respectfully - no. You're wrong. These companies need to be slapped hard by every regulatory body in the world.

They shouldn't have freedom. They should have responsibility they're fearful of. And they should have competition.

Competition is good. Capitalism should be hard. Apple and Google should be sweating, not coasting. This should be a responsibility, not a fish in barrel situation.

I agree with you, but even with the ability to install your own OS properly, you can't necessarily use some of the hardware.

As I recall from Ubuntu Touch, they had to build a system that was a thin wrapper around Android so that they had access to firmware blobs.

I guess that would still be ok as long as the hardware component manufacturers don't start to require authentication from the OS. That would be along the same lines as the fight you're describing.

"But this is not all Google's doing there: all the Android manufacturers are actively preventing users from doing it."

Google is (a) restricting "Android" functionality through trademark and software licenses with manufacturers and (b) paying the manufacturers, e.g., through placement agreements and revenue sharing agreements

Given Google's actions in this regard, why would a manufacturer want to allow hardware purchasers to remove Android and install an OS of their own choosing, e.g., one that does not enable Google data collection, surveillance and ad services and generates no revenue for the manufacturer

The idea of regulating manufacturers that partner with Google seems far-fetched, not serious. For example, I don't see HN comments suggesting Apple should be prohibited from interfering with buyers who want to remove iOS and install another OS in its place

Meanwhile the control, privacy, etc. problems with these corporate OS are avoidable right now by choosing different hardware, specifically hardware that allows installation of open source OS that a concerned buyer can edit, compile and install themselves

Sorry but what a ridiculous take. There are two phone options in the western world: iphone and android. 99.99% of the people aren't' going to even fathom they could install their own OS on a phone or whatever.

There is a clear MONOPOLY on phones and to even further take away the right to just install something on it is crazy. I already hate Apple for that, but there's no recourse in the monopolistic & capitalistic US and now it's going to be 100% gone.

"it should be fine for Google or Apple to do whatever they want with their OS"

Not when they are a MONOPOLY.

Do corporations dream about cyberpunk dystopia?
Someone here on HN used the term "cloud terminal" for modern electronic devices, and I think that is a very fitting name for phones and tablets. They are definitely not computers because they do not actually give the user access to general purpose computing in the sense that the users can control exactly what computations the device is going to execute. They are just terminals whose production costs we cover but which are actually owned by the cloud providers.

Also: The internet is slowly turning into a handful of clouds, and it is only a matter of time before you cannot meaningfully host anything by yourself outside of these clouds because your cloud terminal will refuse to talk to it.

IDK, not really a fan of redefining computer to make a rhetorical point.

It seems counter-productive to tell people the computing device they think as a computer isn’t really a computer. It’s like saying my car isn’t really a car because I can’t adjust spark timing. Someone could make that semantic argument but it’s hard to imagine anyone would care.

Speaking as someone who has built local-only apps (partially because I don’t want the hassle of maintaining a server):

There are plenty of useful apps that run locally on a phone. You can even run a whole LLM on your phone.

The shiniest and most popular apps are cloud terminals but the iPhone is actually a pretty darn powerful device.

Let me play out a scenario, imagine to use a Desktop Hardware like a complete built rig, you would need a specific OS like Windows 11 and you could not run Linux on it, just because it's a vendor lock-in.

Why is this acceptable for phones but would not for the case above?

I know a lot of people don't care, and that's ok, but we should root for an open choice for the users.

This is the most important part:

>> Developers

Do not sign up. Don't join the program by signing up for the Android Developer Console and agreeing to their irrevocable Terms and Conditions. Don't verify your identity. Don't play ball.

Google's plan only works if developers comply. Don't.

Talk other developers and organizations out of signing up. Add the FreeDroidWarn library to your apps to warn users. Run a website? Add the countdown banner.

To be sincere, they were never truly ours. A proof of that is they were able to come up with this, and you don't have a way to reject it.

What we actually need are (open) alternatives, not to double down on Google's ecosystem and Google-controlled OS. We need to control the device we bought and be able to run whatever we wish on it. Just like we do on PCs.

I've resigned to the fact that I'll need to use two phones, one with locked down Android/iOS for banking applications and government services (those require strong bank ID around these parts), another with some kind of a Linux or unlocked Android for literally everything else. Oh well, such is life, most people don't care enough about this to pressure Google/Apple/banks/governments into yielding.

A big reason why a non-locked-down OS is absolutely vital to me is that sometimes I (reluctantly) have to travel to places where I need to install obscure VPN/proxy services to be able to access international internet. Most services present in app stores have been banned for years now, and the government sometimes even succeeds in making Apple/Google remove the more effective ones from the stores.

>Android's openness was never just a feature. It was the promise that distinguished it from iPhone. Millions chose Android for exactly that reason. Google is now revoking that promise unilaterally, on devices already in people's pockets, because they've decided they have enough market dominance and regulatory capture to get away with it.

This is why I've stuck with Android for the past 15 years.

> Starting September 2026, a silent update, nonconsensually pushed by Google, will block every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with Google, signed their contract, paid up, and handed over government ID.

This is false. Google will provide two other flows for app distribution that are different than this.

> Every app and every device, worldwide, with no opt-out.

Again, false. There is an opt-out called the "advanced flow".

https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/android-de...

"Tap the build number 7 times" ... "wait 24 hours"

Throw a pinch of salt over your left (wait, no ... right) shoulder. Spin around clockwise 3 times. Read the Rosary twice.

AHA! So, they are allowing users to keep doing what they want.

I don't care, I run Graphene, and my phone is definitely mine. Most Android apps just work, and the ones that don't are the kind of malware I am happy to do without.
I don't see why megacorporations and governments are allowed to control the computer I carry around in my pocket, while I'm not.
I think of my iPhone as a phone plus a mobile browser plus a biometric device. It has a lot of memory and a lot of compute power but that is just because all the crap sites and apps out there, unnecessary animations, etc. One could also claim that a phone is a mobile gaming device, although that is not my thing.

Biometrics is the feature that confers all the power to Apple and Google. All sorts of shady things can be done in the name of security and privacy.

The internet would be a much better place if browsing and biometrics were done in different devices.

The author as well as commenters in this thread are claiming that people choose Android over iOS or vice versa

One could argue this is false dichotomy

These people are actually choosing a particular form factor with particular specifications that, more or less, only runs corporate mobile OS^1 instead of form factors that run non-corporate OS

1. Or some derivative of one that relies on the corporate distributor and replicates the tethering to a third party, e.g., "phoning home" to the OS distributor, "automatic updates" (remote code execution), etc.

There are other form factors of computers that can run non-corporate OS, where "phone home" and RCE code does not exist or, if necessary, any undesired code can be easily removed by concerned users

In sum, one could argue that with respect to control, privacy, etc. (a) choosing to use one corporate mobile OS over another is not a meaningful "choice" when compared with (b) choosing to use a non-corporate, open source, "compilable by the user" OS instead of a "locked down" corporate mobile OS

This choice can be made on a case-by-case basis depending on what computing problem the user is trying solve. With respect to anyone who seeks to use their "phone" as a general purpose computer to solve every computing problem, one could argue the "choice" of one corporate mobile OS over another is not meaningful with respect to user control, privacy, etc.

Instead "tech journalists", "tech blogs" and online commenters prefer to argue over which is the "better" corporate mobile OS. The truth is, with respect to control, privacy, etc., they all suck

This change has served me well! I have been a Mac OS X users for years who used an android phone. As soon as google announced their impending walled garden status, I went out and bought into the ios eco system. I have really been enjoying my iphone, ipad, and apple watch.

You see, the only value that Android really offered me was the ability to run my own code on my own device. Since they are taking that away that just makes it a crappier shadow of the vastly superior apple experience. And, as it turns out, ios is less restrictive than it was 18 years ago when I left them for Android!

There is a negative network effect: The opt-out is so complex and time-consuming that it will deter almost all users (even if some on HN say they will do it).

With so few users, many fewer developers will release apps that don't comply with Google's requirements. Then the value of opting out will decline significantly, which will reduce the number of people doing it, which will reduce the number of apps released ...

How do corporate users distribute custom apps on iPhones? Must they distribute them via Apple's store or is there some corporate mode, maybe involving X.509 certs and device management, that enables large-scale professional users to sideload?

> "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.

You know, I'm fine with this (just as long as the opt-in is one-time, not for every install). A device maker needs to balance the interests of many different groups, including nontechnical users subject to scams, and it's pretty self-centered to get self-righteously outraged when things get a little harder for power users, when those changes may save the butt of a lot of other people.

The only thing that gives me pause is this:

> Worse: this flow runs entirely through Google Play Services, not the Android OS. Google can change it, tighten it, or kill it at any time, with no OS update required and no consent needed. And as of today, it hasn't shipped in any beta, preview, or canary build. It exists only as a blog post and some mockups.

So wait, does this mean that Google will forcefully uninstall the apps I currently have installed?! or disable? will the apps work again once I went through the 24h process?
On my Android phone's home screen I have 23 apps, 11 of them are my own. If Android prevents me from installing my own apps I will switch to something else.
Jokes on them, I have an iPhone. My phone was never truly mine.
This keeps coming up and I just want to point out that it's the result of one judge using the book rather than their brain to make a ruling.

Google asked (the appeals judge) why Apple was not a monopoly with the App store. The judge told Google it was because they cannot be anti-competitive if they have no competitors.

Well, here we are.

This is a wild misrepresentation of the situation. Saying there is no opt-out is just false, they even provide the information on how users can opt-out. The "mandatory 24 hour cooling-off period" is also misleading, it's easy to bypass the cooling-off period with ADB.
This is certainly bad news, but at least an escape hatch exists (the "advanced flow") and it appears to be a one-time pain in the ass. If that changes, I hope GrapheneOS and friends[1] can get Google Pay or some alternative working so I can comfortably jump ship, as I rely pretty heavily on the ability to pay with my phone.

[1] https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm

Russian here, a former Android and iPhone user. I had to switch to Graphene OS in full paranoid more due to our worsening situation regarding VPNs and phone searches.

After about a month of using Graphene OS, I'm not looking back – it's great. I'm not recommending it as a 100% solution for everyone, but it's definitely a very solid practical step towards keeping the phone yours:

1. Your phone will be able to operate as a basic phone (calls, SMS, web, photos / videos, location, Bluetooth, eSIM) without a Google account.

2. You will always be able to install an APK. This helps you install apps that are banned from Google Play Store in your country.

3. There's a duress PIN that lets you wipe the phone completely from any 'Enter PIN' screen. (I tried it, it's a bit messy, but it does wipe the phone and in the end you return to a blank Graphene OS installation – no need to reinstall.)

4. There's a setting that lets you disable any USB port functionality other than charging.

5. The permission system is amazing. If you are forced to install a state-mandated spy app (like the Max messenger in Russia), you can put it into a "permission jail" where the app assumes that it has access to the requested data but actually receives what you explicitly give it. For example, you can select individual photos and contacts to make available to the app – while the app will think that it has access to all contacts and photos. Bonus: the new Internet permission, which lets apps think that they are connected to the Internet while they are actually blocked from it.

6. You can have a separate profile for data and apps you don't want to expose. (There's also a Private Space for that, it's very convenient but it exposes installed apps via app search from the main space.)

7. There's an End Session function for a logged-in profile that stops it from running, wipes it from memory, and puts the data at rest.

8. You can have a separate VPN in each profile. This should help against situations where your local equivalent of Roskomnadzor sniffs out your VPN connection settings via state-mandated changes in apps operating in your jurisdiction, and bans that particular VPN later. Just make sure you install all spy apps under a profile with a disposable VPN that you aren't afraid to lose.

9. Each profile (and the Private Space too, because technically it is a special kind of Profile) can have a separate Google account. For example, one profile can have a Russian Google account (for banking and state apps), while another profile can have an Armeninan Google account (for things that are banned in Russia, like Spotify and Kindle.) However, to arrange this, you have to physically be in the desired country – Google doesn't let you change the account country without being there.

To sum up – if you are concerned about this situation, buy Pixel 10 (excellent hardware btw.), install Graphene OS (very easy, their web installer is great), and try using it for a while.

This is reason I don't use ios. I will be happy to use a new OS forked from android at this point of time. Any suggestions? I don't care where it originates from.
Thank you for sharing this. It is sad that Google has by now destroyed every reason I wanted to run Android. Bye-bye.
The fact that many Android bootloaders are not allowed to be unlocked by users means, by definition, these devices were never yours to begin with. It is not Google taking away your ability to use your sideloaded apps on your device because true, unlimited device freedom was never yours to begin with.
This feels like something where the EU Commission should step in. This is directly counter to the Digital Markets Act, it's Google abusing its gatekeeper position.
> People chose Android because it was different.

Source?

The android/iOS market shares vary a lot by country, with android dominating worldwide. North America is an exception with iOS in front (I think even more so in Canada). Maybe people _in the US_ choose android because it's different?

In Germany for example the android market share vs iOS is something like 60:40. India, something like 90:10.

Reasonable explanation: there's many more different price and feature ranges with android. I doubt the average Indian or German would say they bought an android "because it's more open", especially if they're in the great majority of people who don't work in tech.

My position regarding devices is that only 2 out of 3 should be satisfied:

1. Used as a proof of identity (for banks, govt services, etc.)

2. Is distributed to laypeople who have more pressing concerns in their lives than security.

3. Is an open platform where you can download apps arbitrarily from the Internet that can read your data and exfiltrate them to a malicious actor.

The mainstream today chooses 1&2. Novelty, underpowered devices choose 2&3. Hobbyists have option 3 (and those who like to live dangerously 1&3) with some inconvenience. You can still run GrapheneOS... and the mainstream apps that expect your device to be a proof of your identity won't work... and I find that quite reasonable.

Can't even run F-Droid any more? That's the only source of apps I use.
I think it's time to visit an Apple Store and try out the Apple ecosystem. I haven't used an Apple device in a long time.
Yes, but not because of those changes in the GMS stock OS, but because the ability to unlock the bootloader (and install the OS you can actually control) is being increasingly limited.

Stock GMS Android was never yours, you only had access to basic permissions, privileged/signature permissions were only accessible to Google/vendors anyway.

GrapheneOS and PostmarketOS deserve more visibility
It is going to sound odd, but.. why do we need a phone number at all ( I know why it is so entrenched -- I am asking about need )? Because, if phone number is not needed, we can move to bypass the annoying effective duopoly.
From my point of view I don't see anything wrong with knowing a little bit more about the person behind the app I'm trusting to do my personal compute on my personal device. Personally I always think twice when I download apps from company's whose names I don't recognize. Same with PCs... do you really want to run that *.exe you downloaded from that cool site you found?

Changes like this will help keep developers honest and accountable. Yeah yeah bad apples will still find ways to screw us.

If you want to publish an app to a global scale ecosystem, is it really too much to ask to give some ID?

If an update could silently block any app from working then your phone was never yours to begin with. Even if they never implement the update, the potential power means they own your phone.

We lost control of our hardware a long long time ago.

It's incredible that on the same device we can write pithy little comments, we can also play games, listen to music, read countless books, basically access the whole of the internet, and also empty out bank accounts. I'd wager most of those can be done on many people's devices in under a minute, with little more safeguard than a fingerprint.

To me this isn't some security flaw in android that allows users to do something. It's a fundamental flaw in having most of the world's population forced into using a device whose software, firmware, and hardware are gate kept by a handful of monopolistic companies. They want all your eggs in one basket, and they'll hold the basket for you.

For many people these things mediate a person's interaction with the world. That's not some super fantastic responsibility on Google's shoulders, but a humanist catastrophe caused in part by (and of course handsomely profitable for) Google.

I don't understand, there was all this regulation for force apple to allow alternative app stores, and now google are pulling this move?

How is this not the same walled garden approach apple was forced to change?