www.androidauthority.com/android-developer-verification-requirements-3590911/
-
www.androidauthority.com/android-developer-verification-requirements-3590911/
I must reiterate. I really like open systems.
This is the opposite of that. It's yet more infrastructure for Google to force dependence on Google Play Services in the wider Android ecosystem.
It's also a great way to kill off a bunch of independent developers that make zero money from their project from publishing software for your platform.
This idea needs to be canned. -
www.androidauthority.com/android-developer-verification-requirements-3590911/
I must reiterate. I really like open systems.
This is the opposite of that. It's yet more infrastructure for Google to force dependence on Google Play Services in the wider Android ecosystem.
It's also a great way to kill off a bunch of independent developers that make zero money from their project from publishing software for your platform.
This idea needs to be canned.Software should not require permission to be written.
Software should not require permission to be distributed.
Software should not have a central entity controlling it.
The future is decentralized, fuck your centralized signature verification checks. -
www.androidauthority.com/android-developer-verification-requirements-3590911/
I must reiterate. I really like open systems.
This is the opposite of that. It's yet more infrastructure for Google to force dependence on Google Play Services in the wider Android ecosystem.
It's also a great way to kill off a bunch of independent developers that make zero money from their project from publishing software for your platform.
This idea needs to be canned.@alexia@starlightnet.work pleasepleasepleaseplease make it disableable
-
www.androidauthority.com/android-developer-verification-requirements-3590911/
I must reiterate. I really like open systems.
This is the opposite of that. It's yet more infrastructure for Google to force dependence on Google Play Services in the wider Android ecosystem.
It's also a great way to kill off a bunch of independent developers that make zero money from their project from publishing software for your platform.
This idea needs to be canned. -
@alexia@starlightnet.work pleasepleasepleaseplease make it disableable
@stella Everything is currently pointing towards the fact that this won't be the case. If you go to the official press release that Google released about this upcoming "feature", then you will find that there is a section about hobbyist developers, which implies that those two will have to give up their ID in a separate dashboard that's coming soon. -
www.androidauthority.com/android-developer-verification-requirements-3590911/
I must reiterate. I really like open systems.
This is the opposite of that. It's yet more infrastructure for Google to force dependence on Google Play Services in the wider Android ecosystem.
It's also a great way to kill off a bunch of independent developers that make zero money from their project from publishing software for your platform.
This idea needs to be canned.@alexia@shrimp.starlightnet.work
oh boy i love the one thing i moved to due to a lack of freedom in iOS deciding to worsen itself again
-
@stella Everything is currently pointing towards the fact that this won't be the case. If you go to the official press release that Google released about this upcoming "feature", then you will find that there is a section about hobbyist developers, which implies that those two will have to give up their ID in a separate dashboard that's coming soon.
-
www.androidauthority.com/android-developer-verification-requirements-3590911/
I must reiterate. I really like open systems.
This is the opposite of that. It's yet more infrastructure for Google to force dependence on Google Play Services in the wider Android ecosystem.
It's also a great way to kill off a bunch of independent developers that make zero money from their project from publishing software for your platform.
This idea needs to be canned.@alexia didn't they just get sued for trying to kill of app stores like aurora store? Like, this might be an attempt at yknow...
This is actually stupid asf as well: "Google will soon verify the identities of developers who distribute Android apps outside the Play Store."
-
@alexia didn't they just get sued for trying to kill of app stores like aurora store? Like, this might be an attempt at yknow...
This is actually stupid asf as well: "Google will soon verify the identities of developers who distribute Android apps outside the Play Store."
-
www.androidauthority.com/android-developer-verification-requirements-3590911/
I must reiterate. I really like open systems.
This is the opposite of that. It's yet more infrastructure for Google to force dependence on Google Play Services in the wider Android ecosystem.
It's also a great way to kill off a bunch of independent developers that make zero money from their project from publishing software for your platform.
This idea needs to be canned. -
www.androidauthority.com/android-developer-verification-requirements-3590911/
I must reiterate. I really like open systems.
This is the opposite of that. It's yet more infrastructure for Google to force dependence on Google Play Services in the wider Android ecosystem.
It's also a great way to kill off a bunch of independent developers that make zero money from their project from publishing software for your platform.
This idea needs to be canned.@alexia I wonder what will @fdroidorg folks say about this; if entities like @fsfe or @OpenForumEurope will try to do something preemptive about it taking into account this will go against #DMA at least; etc.. We can't wait for it to be in action before starting to push back.
-
www.androidauthority.com/android-developer-verification-requirements-3590911/
I must reiterate. I really like open systems.
This is the opposite of that. It's yet more infrastructure for Google to force dependence on Google Play Services in the wider Android ecosystem.
It's also a great way to kill off a bunch of independent developers that make zero money from their project from publishing software for your platform.
This idea needs to be canned. -
Software should not require permission to be written.
Software should not require permission to be distributed.
Software should not have a central entity controlling it.
The future is decentralized, fuck your centralized signature verification checks. -
@alexia @bigzaphod What’s cool about anarchy is that it always works because everyone is altruistic. See also libertarianism.
-
-
@bigzaphod @alexia False equivalency. Your garage contraption doesn’t have the same potential for harm as software. Your novel can never log my keystrokes.
-
@RyanHyde @bigzaphod @alexia cool story, I still don't want google deciding what software I fucking run on my devices and who's allowed to make it
@zoee @bigzaphod @alexia That’s fine for you to want that. I don’t want that. Both things can be true.
Look, I’m not saying that <Big Tech Company> should have all the power in the world, or at they should be the sole arbiters. But I also don’t think <Whatever Developer> should have free rein. These forces need to be in proper tension for the industry and society to function well.
If you want to make the argument that the system is not currently balanced, I’d agree with you. But I’ll never agree to arguments for an unregulated market.
-
@bigzaphod @alexia False equivalency. Your garage contraption doesn’t have the same potential for harm as software. Your novel can never log my keystrokes.
@RyanHyde @bigzaphod @alexia I'm not sure I have the energy for this argument, but it's not just false equivalence but completely wrong.
Write whatever novel you want - if it violates obscenity laws, hate speech, incitement, or terrorism you'll get prosecuted.
A contraption in your garage *very definitely* needs permission if it transmits into non permitted parts of the EM spectrum, emits too much noise, pollution, has the potential to harm anyone, or you wish to take it out in a public place where standards apply (i.e. building your own car).
I don't like the direction this software is going in, but it's something I've predicted for years and been repeatedly downvoted for particularly when it applies to phones.
A manufacturer releases a phone with a very short security lifecycle. People buy it anyway because they don't care if it affects anyone else, as long as it appears to work for them. Go down this road, *eventually* the result is signed, time bombed, mandated, remote disableable firmware.
-
@zoee @bigzaphod @alexia That’s fine for you to want that. I don’t want that. Both things can be true.
Look, I’m not saying that <Big Tech Company> should have all the power in the world, or at they should be the sole arbiters. But I also don’t think <Whatever Developer> should have free rein. These forces need to be in proper tension for the industry and society to function well.
If you want to make the argument that the system is not currently balanced, I’d agree with you. But I’ll never agree to arguments for an unregulated market.
@RyanHyde @bigzaphod @alexia Yeah okay but that's exactly what this is doing? Google will have the choice to approve or not of a developer. That's absolute and they will abuse this, as companies always do.
What even is the "free rein" for developers you are talking about? That they can make and publish stuff without being forced to go through 50 hoops including revealing their identity to get the approval of your favorite megacorp? Maybe I, a user, don't want a corporation to have more power over my own hardware than me?
We're not even talking about an "industry", or a "market"? This is nonsensical
-
@alexia @bigzaphod What’s cool about anarchy is that it always works because everyone is altruistic. See also libertarianism.
@RyanHyde @alexia @bigzaphod and what's cool about relying on big centralised bureaucracies to make sure everyone plays nicely is that they're always benevolent, always hyper-efficient, never make mistakes, and never leak confidential information. see also the US government.
(this *is* how we play this game, right?)