• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    5 hours ago

    The mere phasing of it as them “letting” users do it shows that they fundamentally Do Not Get It and are still failing to respect device owners’ property rights.

  • Osan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I’ve already switched my pc to Linux. I’m willing to switch my phone to Linux too. My only problem with current alternatives is that none of them feel like a finished product Software-wise. And hardware-wise I have a galaxy ultra so the downgrade would be a lot especially in the performance and cameras.

    We need a Linux based/Open-source alternative that could compete with the likes of Apple, Google, and Samsung. It’s not impossible especially with current available technology, but I can see why the market incentives are very low.

    I was hoping new laws could at least keep the status quo for a bit longer but it turns out as always relying on politicians is a bad idea.

  • 6nk06@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Dear GrapheneOS or Linux, please create a usable phone ASAP. They are all crazy. Sincerely.

    • SmokeyDope@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Also the Phone must be at or under 200$ no matter the build quality. I get it, linux users are likely to be cushy financially well off opsec nerds will pay out the wazoo for hardkill switches which I guess is your bread and butter whales to target in this market. Please release something economical for us plebs it can be like a walmart tracphone for all I care.

      • Yaky@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        PinePhone is $200. But the manufacturer offloaded all development onto the community.

        Librem actually pays some developers, but their phones are $700+. And you will find many complaints about refunds.

        Cheap prices are possible by economies of scale by manufacturers, but same manufacturers guard their proprietary hardware.

        Also, how “pleb” are we talking about? Many people DGAF and just want their calls/text/apps to work.

  • waddle_dee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Meanwhile, work on a “dedicated account type for students and hobbyists” continues. This will allow for app distribution to a “limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements.”

    Well, that doesn’t sound promising

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 hours ago

      It sounds like the Apple restriction. Apple lets you “side load” your own program without going through the Apple store but only for your own iphone.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Technically not. But only technically. The only reason to allow side loading at all is to allow “experienced users” to put unverified apps on their devices. Otherwise it doesn’t make much sense to even make such a concession.

      It looks like they’re going to have two different solutions: one for power users and one for hobbyists and students.

      My main problem with this is twofold. They explain exactly nothing about how they achieve “experienced user sideloading”, they don’t explain what an “experienced user” is, and they don’t explain in any detail whether or not they’re going to allow sideloaded apps to be unverified.

      The other part of the problem is that I don’t trust Google. There’s way too many instances of them backing down publicly from a decision they made and then implementing it in a different way over time.

      The truth is this announcement doesn’t give us any details so all we can make are assumptions.

  • solrize@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 hours ago

    There’s a thread about this on HN that I’m having trouble finding now, but I looked at it a couple days ago. It said you’ll be able to install unverified programs, but other programs will be able to tell that you have done so. E.g. your banking app could consider your phone “contaminated” and refuse to run, if it knows you’re running something unverified, that’s presumptively intercepting your typing or whatever.

    • artyom@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      We don’t know exactly yet, but it sounds like they’re transitioning away from that requirement.

      It sounds like they’re just going to put up more scary banners and/or hide the option in the developer menu.

      • Engywook@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 hours ago

        “Are you sure? How sure? Just sure or sure-sure? How would you rate you sureness in a scale from 0 to 10?..”