13 comments

  • develoopest 2 hours ago
    I don't understand why ensuring general-purpose computing is not a priority of the European Union.

    All that talk about sovereignty, and we are giving full control of our digital lives to 2 American companies.

    • littlecranky67 16 minutes ago
      Because the EU wants attestation for age verification, digital surveillance and censorship, not free software platforms that wont implement any of those.
    • vincnetas 1 hour ago
      Well that was the original android phone idea. Get a hackable open device that you can write apps for your self. Even attach third party hardware to it for extra functionality with lots of customisation. But this idea has mutated quite a bit.
      • mosura 1 hour ago
        Even by 2015 the noise in Google was “the Chrome OS model is better” with reference to them centrally controlling everything.

        Andy Rubin was no saint, on so many levels, but when he was removed from Android leadership and the Chrome culture effectively took over this was always how it was going to go.

      • dainiusse 1 hour ago
        I fully agree with it. But I think Google also understands that the platform is unatractive for businesses. In my case I just don't do Android app because I know it is easy to just take and hack. It is not the case on iPhone. And my app is one time payment so the ability to just copy out the APK leaves me not doing an app at all...
        • _imnothere 1 hour ago
          > I know it is easy to just take and hack

          No you don't, otherwise we wouldn't have banking apps on it.

          • dainiusse 13 minutes ago
            It is a bit different. My app doesn't rely on 3rd party services at all. It just provides functionality. It is not about breaking into someones account.

            I just know that the app can just be cracked - there are plenty of sites that do that for android. Because you can't just load your app on iOS - this is just not possible (well perhaps there are a few percent of some jailbroken iPhones, but that is neglibile).

            On Android though, you can soon see such app stolen and on some of the apk warez sites. It just breaks the model.

          • graceful6800 1 hour ago
            Have you tried extracting, decompiling, and modifying someone else's app?

            It wasn't hard before LLMs and it's nearly trivial now.

            • skinfaxi 45 minutes ago
              Is that not possible with ios applications?
              • Xirdus 42 minutes ago
                You can't sideload iOS applications. Meaning there's no point to doing any of the listed things.
                • drdexebtjl 15 minutes ago
                  Of course you can. How do you think developers test their apps?
            • hparadiz 57 minutes ago
              The crypographic flow that allows payments to work is straight up pub/priv key encryption with one time use tokens. It's not something you can hack. As soon you see the token it's already been used and thrown away. So whatever nonsense about decompiling literally doesn't matter.
              • pixard 37 minutes ago
                He said his app is a one time payment. Presumably there isn’t a backend and he relies on App Store purchases. I know, it’s shocking an app could just be an actual application rather than a web view.
              • jfyi 44 minutes ago
                So your professional opinion is that the attack surface of mobile banking apps is limited to tokenized payments? Honestly, I'd be appalled if tokens were routed through my banking app. There is no reason the local client needs that data.
                • hparadiz 27 minutes ago
                  My professional opinion is that APKs can be de-compiled regardless and that has nothing to do with tokenized payments themselves which are like you said handled through server-server communications at the payment processor level. Your phone simply sends a one time use token to authorize the transaction.
                  • jfyi 19 minutes ago
                    You were the one that brought up payments though. Nobody else specified. They just said it could be hacked, which you seem to agree with.
              • skinfaxi 45 minutes ago
                You can patch out the payment checks if you can decompile it
                • hparadiz 42 minutes ago
                  The payment doesn't happen on the device. It happens at the VISA/Mastercard/AMEX level. So "the app" should be doing the validation upstream on the server side and simply reporting yes/no to the app. If you hack the yes/no okay but most payments are for physical things IRL so the payment gateway that is not on your phone is gonna be like ??? - in other words it's on the app not to trust a raw true/false signal and instead rely on server side checks. This is all irrelevant. I make regular massive purchases on my linux box where I can read the memory. It doesn't change anything.
    • yorwba 2 hours ago
      There is no shortage of general-purpose computing hardware in the EU. If you need some general-purpose compute to make a car, an oven, or a phone, you can get it. That consumers mostly buy special-purpose devices that don't always allow them to make full use of the possibilities of the hardware is hardly a sovereignity challenge.
      • zb3 35 minutes ago
        Show me where I can get a general-purpose computing hardware with 8GB+ of RAM that fits in my pocket and has a touchscreen.
    • 927373912092 34 minutes ago
      Sovereignity of the EU regime, not of their subjects.

      Why would these corrupt bureacrats give up their full control over the lives of those who didn't elect them?

    • inigyou 2 hours ago
      It's a regulated market economy. Someone has to actually make the product. They can't force someone to make a product.

      There's MNT in the EU.

      • drdexebtjl 8 minutes ago
        They can’t force someone to make a product, but they can force someone to choose between making a product or exiting the EU market.

        In practice they’re the same thing.

      • mosura 1 hour ago
        Do what the Chinese did and fork Android.

        The EU has enough tech talent to do it, but the political and managerial class lack both the strategic ability or the willingness to adequately reward the effort it would take, almost certainly preferring to, again, outsource the concern, and then be shocked Pikachu later.

        Anyone doubting this should see how BMW think about their in car software. And that is for a supposedly premium product.

        • inigyou 1 hour ago
          There's GrapheneOS. It's Canadian, not European. I'm not sure where LineageOS is from.

          BMW isn't the EU government. Like I said, someone has to actually do it. BMW Actually Did It in a really user hostile way, and that's the best we have. Why is nobody Actually Doing It but good? Or why aren't we buying MNT products?

          • mosura 1 hour ago
            BMW behaviour is perfectly representative of the EU mentality.

            As is your comment. It is basically “someone else should do this properly and I will take the benefits” but not actually willing to put up the hard bit themselves.

            • inigyou 1 hour ago
              I'm talking about the government of the EU. You seem to be talking about all the countries and the people in the countries.
              • mosura 1 hour ago
                You need to parse the word mentality in context.

                The root problem here is the EU is culturally broken, and until some grand disaster will simply decline ever further with everyone involved wondering why no one else is doing anything about it.

                • inigyou 34 minutes ago
                  Why don't we export some better culture to Europe then? That would be a good place and now would be a good time for Americans to flee to.
                  • mosura 22 minutes ago
                    You couldn’t epitomize the problem more if you tried.
        • ptero 1 hour ago
          If the govvies (any govvies; there is nothing specific to EU here) drive that process of forking a large, powerful, universally used system you will end up with more surveillance, not less.

          Because kids, because pornography, because terrorism, whatever. This is too powerful an option for control freaks to resist.

          • mosura 17 minutes ago
            And this is why everyone gives up on doing anything while standing around complaining that no one does the right thing.

            What is so pernicious about the EU approach is the enthusiasm and efficiency with which it stops anyone from doing anything, while simultaneously attempting to regulate what everyone else in the world can do. If they put even a small part of that energy into encouraging the right thing to happen they would be in such a better place it is insane.

            • inigyou 14 minutes ago
              Not really. They weren't saying if it existed in the EU it'd have to surveil. They were saying if the EU government created it it'd have to surveil.
              • mosura 10 minutes ago
                Honestly your reading comprehension is not good today.

                They said if the government “drive the process of forking” which could mean encourage a group of academics to do it, or a commercial consortium. It does not mean the EU government take on the task themselves.

                It is self evident from actual EU behaviour that any mobile os that gets to users will be legally required to be a surveillance disaster area, regardless of origin, and the only people that have prevented this already are evil US corporations.

          • inigyou 15 minutes ago
            I'm not 100% sure about surveillance but you will definitely end up with the most milquetoast risk-averse bland corporate system ever, complete with 6 months of paperwork and KYC to get a certificate to sign any executable with your real name, so it will be allowed to run.
      • p0w3n3d 2 hours ago
        They can make the product according to rules that are imposed on them. One rule: allow privacy. Unless the privacy is not in the field of interest of both the producer and the EU
        • inigyou 1 hour ago
          Yes, you could make the product. But you're not. And neither is anyone else. And there's nothing the EU government can directly do about that.
        • vovavili 1 hour ago
          Then why are you not making it?
      • cmeacham98 2 hours ago
        While the EU and its member countries can't (or at least morally shouldn't) force people to make the product, if it was a priority they could incentivise it with funding, tax breaks, etc.
        • inigyou 1 hour ago
          NLnet funds a lot of things, few of which get very popular. It keeps a lot of FOSS gears turning but it's not making the next iPhone.
      • toymin 2 hours ago
        They could give more funding to SailfishOS, for example
        • inigyou 1 hour ago
          Sailfish would have to ask for it. Possibly via NLnet. Have they?

          And they need a plan to spend it.

    • petra 1 hour ago
      I'm sure Europe currently uses the surveillance capabilities of those systems to prevent bad shit from happening.

      So maybe they prefer another solution to the sovereignty issue.

    • vlyan 1 hour ago
      why do you still believe that EU is a benevolent entity?
      • 927373912092 33 minutes ago
        Either a paid shill or a useful idiot.
    • legastenigga 43 minutes ago
      [dead]
    • pitchlatte 2 hours ago
      yeah but processors phone home anyway at a level beneath the OS and there’s no european chip development worth mentioning. so i’m not sure real sovereignty is ever going to be possible. crazy considering ASML being in europe.
  • Cider9986 2 hours ago
    GrapheneOS has minimal, private [1] system apps so you don't have to debloat anything yourself. Manual debloating is not a good solution at the user level.

    Some system apps are being overhauled, so that's something to look forward to. Gallery will be [2] based on ReFra [3].

    [1] Except phone and messaging but that's the cell network.

    GrapheneOS recommends Signal/Molly or SimpleX instead.

    [2] https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2083724696722301266#m

    [3] https://github.com/IacobIonut01/ReFra

    • Elfener 2 hours ago
      GrapheneOS or other custom ROMs don't solve the actual problem that you can't just buy a smartphone and install any operating system like you can with an actual computer, despite technically being one.

      Also, GrapheneOS supports device attestation (the non-google kind at least), which is still ridiculous as such systems have no benefit to people, only to technofeudalist corporations.

      • hparadiz 59 minutes ago
        Device attestation is how you can use private keys you don't actually have access to. It has a lot of value to literally anyone who wants to store tokens or use one time authentication codes. Linux folks need to implement the full stack and offer an open alternative to payments, secrets, and tokens. In the age of LLMs there is no excuse. It is annoying as hell that I can't buy a System76 or Framework laptop with a fingerprint sensor but a Lenovo comes with one that works on Linux perfectly.
        • sophrosyne42 33 minutes ago
          Framework has a fingerprint sensor. [1]

          [1] https://frame.work/products/fingerprint-reader-kit?v=FRANTD0...

          • jeroenhd 6 minutes ago
            Lots of laptop vendors do. Very few integrate fingerprint scanners into any kind of secure authentication flow, though. There are decent fingerprint drivers for various brands, but connecting fingerprints to authentication beyond basic login requires manual setup.

            You don't actually need biometrics to use key material, that's what (f)TPMs are for. They're not set up to be usable out of the box in any Linux distro I've tried, though.

          • hparadiz 25 minutes ago
            It needs to come stock on every Linux laptop from now going forward period. Like you expect a screen to come with your machine. Every Mac has one now and I'm not going back to typing my password in every single time.
      • gruez 1 hour ago
        >which is still ridiculous as such systems have no benefit to people, only to technofeudalist corporations.

        GrapheneOS literally has an app that uses attestation and isn't for "technofeudalist corporations".

        https://attestation.app/about

      • subscribed 31 minutes ago
        If this is your stance it's trivial to have your cake and eat it. You can easily build your own GrapheneOS based image, which will then be unable to use attestation (because your own keys you'll use for the secure boot won't match).

        And I'm not trying to be snarky, if that's the only thing, it's solvable right now. Everything else will work.

        And concerning "you can't just buy a device and install is" - android and iOS are far more secure than any desktop os, and both pixel/iPhones are far more secure than any computer (or any other phone as well (we'll get the third one next year)). GrapheneOS actually explains "whys" in their hardware support faw section.

        Generally maintaining an os is a hard work, so that perhaps explains why there's not many mature offerings.

    • belowavgiq 16 minutes ago
      GrapheneOS has got absolutely nothing to do with any of this. LineageOS, pure AOSP, are all the same. No bloat, no locks. The way they've successfully marketed a more involved custom ROM as a special OS to tech illiterates is very funny I'll admit.
    • mrbn100ful 2 hours ago
      What does GrapheneOS have to do with this?

      This is very useful on OEM ROMs with a bunch of scrapware, no one expects a custom ROM to have this issue.

    • nicman23 2 hours ago
      in grapheneOS you can disable or uninstall almost everything without adb anyways
    • nekusar 1 hour ago
      And Graphene OS is also anti-user by being tremendously rude about NOT providing root and using the same tired "suck-u-rity" crap Google and Apple also use.

      If you're smart enough to buy a phone that supports GrapheneOS, AND install it, yeah you should have root.

      And tools like XPrivacy and plugins allow control of subsystems like GPS spoofing and lying to apps.

      • justonenote 58 minutes ago
        If you are technical and want root its very easy to patch a build of GrapheneOS to include whatever mechanism you want. You can even automate this to continue to receive updates.

        I think the decision of GrapheneOS to maintain the attestation features and not providing user root is what gives it a fighting chance of being accepted as legitimate 3rd choice. See: Revolut and others adding GrapheneOS keys and trusting their attestation

        Like or not, for most users, having root access is a liability, especially with more and more important things being held on phones . Someone downloading a photo editing app and then having a rootkit installed in the background that waits to empty their bank account is not a workable situation.

        • gruez 25 minutes ago
          >If you are technical and want root its very easy to patch a build of GrapheneOS to include whatever mechanism you want. You can even automate this to continue to receive updates.

          You don't even need to patch it, AFAIK. You can just install magisk, which is how you're supposed to get root on LineageOS as well.

      • Cider9986 57 minutes ago
        GrapheneOS's goals are privacy which must start from a secure baseline. If you want to make it less secure yourself, you can, but it's not the goal of the project.

        It's not anti-user if it doesn't add the features you want that would destroy the security of the OS.

        It has many features that give the user more control. Like disabling emergency alerts, protecting your data from attackers, contact and storage scopes (lying to apps for more privacy while retaining functionality), sensors permission, network permission.

  • K0balt 47 minutes ago
    Seriously question; why is the answer to this not a phone that can just run GNU/Linux? Is it just the lack of application support? I mean, you’ll have blobs, but at least at the os level you’ll have options?

    Can’t you run an android sandbox in Linux?

    Docker phone?

    I’m sure I’m missing something here, but what?

    • jeroenhd 3 minutes ago
      Energy efficient Linux is hard. Vendors aren't doing the hard work for anything but Android. So, most hardware won't work (for more than a few hours) using normal Linux.

      postmarketOS and other projects are working tirelessly at bringing Linux to phones. SailfishOS too. Plenty of Android apps even run inside these runtimes.

      App compatibility relies on apps supporting (very) old Android versions, though. It's also flaky in many areas and with how few Linux phones have decent GPU support, there's also a performance challenge there.

      For some apps, running on Linux doesn't work because the app developers chose to only run on Play Certified, original firmware (Play Integrity and friends). Those apps cannot be patched to work right unless they implemented their checks badly.

    • Telaneo 36 minutes ago
      Many of the apps that people need to have smartphone to access will not run in an Android sandbox. Banking apps are the obvious example.

      Not to mention that the options outside iOS and Android are slim and for the most part bad (or atleast simply even worse than those).

    • zb3 15 minutes ago
      Because this will be less profitable. Google created a cartel-like model where if you make a device that doesn't respect user choice, you will make more money because Google will share with you, providing you obey their rules.

      This model is attractive for almost everyone - Google, OEMs, operators and even governments.. the only side that loses here is.. the user.

      This situation can't be solved with market forces alone, it must be solved by law.

    • achierius 41 minutes ago
      Desktop operating systems != phone operating systems. You need to have a lot of support for things like "sleep apps you're not using right now" or you'll burn through battery. Not to mention that we tend to expect a lot of functionality which only works when the OS enables it, e.g. the sort of app-to-app coordination enabled by Android's App Intents. You certainly could build something like that on top of DBus, but, well, you'd have to build it.
      • zekica 36 minutes ago
        xdg already provides "portals" and "XDG Intents" that implement most of what android does. Flatpak implements most of the sandboxing you have on android. It doesn't have feature parity but IMO it doesn't need to. CGroups and systemd-user can prevent apps from running in the background.
      • K0balt 23 minutes ago
        This seems to be a case of “I want to use services from companies that are built on business models hostile towards my sovereignty, privacy, and rights! ; I can’t believe hostilecorp wont let me work around their hostileOS?”

        I mean, it really sucks that so many people have made themselves dependent on this crap, but at some point you just have to stop buying the poison or stop complaining that it makes you sick.

        The poison to utility ratio has gotten so high that it’s getting increasingly attractive just to ditch the whole thing. You either have to draw the line or accept that there is no line, and that you will yield any degree of agency in exchange for convenience.

        For so many people, big corporations decide what they will buy, where they will eat, who they will date, how they will interact, what they believe, where they will go, how they will get there.

        Multiple choice is not choice. It is the illusion of choice in a fully packaged life.

  • jackdoe 13 minutes ago
    In the next decade open hardware will win, any machine that exposes itself to be programmed by its user will be infinitely better than a machine that doesn't.

    From keyboards to phones to tractors.

    The appstore will die, and the walled gardens will die.

    Unless they use 'for the children' to make open machines illegal.

  • createful 2 hours ago
    I think it might be a good idea to pause updates on our Android devices, as horrible as it is for security just to prevent this from happening. My OEM has a lot of bloat (Facebook and other junk apps you can't uninstall, useless system services, etc) that mostly do nothing except provide some functionality I don't use along with analytics every minute so they are uninstalled.

    "Disabling" an app does not do that much, the OS can re enable it with an update or prevent you from disabling it.

    I doubt there is true full privacy on a phone anymore with a stock ROM.

    • kotaKat 1 hour ago
      Every single reboot on my lower end Motorola phone, they have decided it fit to re-enable com.glance.lockscreenM every single boot and on every single update.

      It's horrible. I don't think I can trust them to produce a Graphene phone at all, really, despite all of everyone's assurances.

      • createful 1 hour ago
        At least you can disable it; on some phones (especially Chinese phones) you cannot do anything to the system services, they intercept all app requests, essentially what Google did but with their system. The only recommendation I can give you is to look into Hail (device-owner app that can "freeze" apps, a "lower level" form of disabling, see https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.aistra.hail/) which will mean even if the app gets reinstalled on system update, the device owner app will prevent it from running.

        I think GrapheneOS might have issues in the future considering that Android will be getting more and more locked down. People say GrapheneOS is the better OS when it just is hardened Android; it is doomed purely because of the Android base.

        Perhaps a Linux based edition of GrapheneOS would do well, even if it will not have a lot of app compatibility. There's only so much patching you have to do to Android before it just becomes more work than good.

      • Markoff 1 hour ago
        just use Shizuku + Canta to remove it
    • Godsend69 1 hour ago
      [dead]
      • createful 1 hour ago
        I use Rethink DNS for this, see (https://github.com/celzero/rethink-app).

        Despite it's name it can also block IPs and specific apps from connecting to specific servers. I use it to block all manufacturer and OEM related apps that I cannot uninstall through adb or disable. Very handy for blocking constant Chinese phone telemetry pings, as well as additional network level blocklists for ads (Pi-hole like), completely locally so you can trust it unlike a shady VPN.

        I checked out your link; it seems to be a mailing list for a hosts file for telemetry? Why is there no option to just see the file without giving in my email? Not the most private.

      • Saris 1 hour ago
        I don't this is doing a lot, it only has 18 domains listed and is missing all tracking domains from samsung, motorola, apple, android, etc..
  • tstactplsignore 1 hour ago
    This sucks. I use adb to uninstall all of the system apps like facebook, youtube, web browser, etc. to give myself a minimalist, distraction-free phone that still has niche apps, maps, and communication apps. Might have to look into the expensive light phones as an alternative now if this update hits my phone.
    • ethagnawl 12 minutes ago
      > I use adb to uninstall all of the system apps like facebook

      I've only ever used Cyanogen/Lineage or Graphene, so I had no idea this was a thing. I'm not surprised but ... WOOF.

    • pid0x17 57 minutes ago
      I had the exact same problem because I had a strong addiction to smartphone apps.

      I looked into the Light Phone and The Mudita Kompakt, but I ended up buying a refurbished Pixel 8 and putting Graphene OS on it, then I installed only essential apps I need. I keep my old iPhone 12 in a drawer at home and use it for anytime I Need any apps that don't work on a custom ROM, which includes my bank app (plus, imo, it's safer not carry around a phone that has my baking data on it in case it gets lost or stolen).

      The light phones are a really cool concept but the Light Phone 3 is quite expensive (more expensive than a new Pixel 10) and the Mudita Kompakt seems to have a huge amount of grievances from users on their forum, so that put me off.

  • ck2 24 minutes ago
  • kotaKat 8 minutes ago
    Looking at the comment in the actual code change:

    "If we are being asked to delete a system app for just one user set flag so it disables rather than reverting to system version of the app."

    ... Joy. This makes the 'nondisable' list an even more unhinged malware delivery mechanism for operators, because you won't be able to disable the carrier shitware app and it gets updates!

    It's time to start cracking down on malware preloads on phones and the over-subsidization of consumer products. We need to stop accepting $50 smartphones and $100 smart TVs that are crammed with a few hundred dollars of profit for the manufacturer to shove ads and malware at you nonstop out of the box.

  • Markoff 1 hour ago
    Why would you uninstall them over disabling them? They make good point uninstalling is pointless, disabling achieves same purpose and it is safer. You can't use that system space anyway.

    if you don't want some system app running just "uninstall" (disable) it with Shizuku + Canta on any non-rooted Android, my current phone is the first one in 15 years with Android which I didn't root since unlocking bootloader on XIaomi is pretty much impossible, but anyway I can achieve pretty much same results with Shizuku and additional apps like Canta, Hail, Shizuwall, etc.

    Potential benefits:

    as mentioned, Android 17 prohibits uninstalling system apps, but allows disabling disabling apps is usually safer, and they could be re-enabled from Settings in some cases many system apps run in the background after being uninstalled, but it's unknown whether they do when disabled. Neutral:

    some apps might get re-enabled unless they're uninstalled (or the opposite). Potential harm:

    that would make it more risky for those who prefer to uninstall instead to save storage most of the already listed apps are primarily tested for uninstalling rather than disabling disabling instead, decreases privacy by not hiding apps, keeping the device unique.

  • spwa4 2 hours ago
    Extremely "Googly" responses there. Not a single mention of the strategy of Google to include, oh, payment, social gaming, ads ... effectively building it into the system and totally disregarding the reasoning that people might want to remove or replace Google Play Services for those reasons. Just act like all that doesn't exist.
  • jauntywundrkind 7 hours ago
    Noose keeps tightening, the war on General Purpose Computing, the war against users owning devices intensifies. How utterly fallen.

    We'll see what happens with the proposed ADB changes. Lots of no one asking for this, lots of people describing how badly their phone use will be greviously impacted, and seemingly very little discussion/engagement/justification. Maybe they'll fire the bullet anyways. https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/526109803

    • mayama 2 hours ago
      I said the same thing about waiting for 24hrs before being able to use adb to install apps. About 24hrs being not a big blocker and that it was good for security. It's all about boiling the frog slowly, 24hrs is the start and then they'll add more restrictions once users accept that. Ultimately goog would like to have the system as much locked down as apple or even more.
      • gruez 24 minutes ago
        >I said the same thing about waiting for 24hrs before being able to use adb to install apps.

        I thought it was 24 hours OR use adb?

    • felooboolooomba 2 hours ago
      You will own nothing and you'll be happy.
      • II2II 1 hour ago
        Maybe they're right, albeit for all the wrong reasons.

        Perhaps the problem is our desire to have everything, no matter what the compromises are. Perhaps the problem is our inability to say, I'm going to go with product X even though it lacks Y because we actually own X. There is virtually no incentive for competition to pop up in such an environment since established companies have a lead of years, decades if you consider the size of the established companies, so consumers will follow their lead.

        I don't mean to suggest that buying alternatives is a solution to the problem as a whole, but doing so may allow enough niche products to survive to give those of us who are interested in alternatives and alternative to choose from.

      • type0 2 hours ago
        You, too, will love Big Brother
  • iluvcommunism 1 hour ago
    [dead]
  • dugite-code 1 hour ago
    Ok this is not as bad as I feared, disable still works and that uninstalls any updates that app has gotten.

    It was always a bit surprising you could uninstall an app in a "read only" partition

    • belowavgiq 10 minutes ago
      HN users are so hilariously out of touch with the Android world they are downvoting your completely correct observation.

      I'd probably get more useful information reading Hindi Telegram groups without translating anything