> One of the best features of Android is that even built-in default applications like the keyboard, browser, launcher, etc can be replaced by alternative implementations.
When sideloading is barred all that can easily change. If you are forced to install everything from the Google Play Store, Google can easily bar such things, again in the name of "security" - alternate keyboards can steal your password, alternate browsers can have adware / malware, alternate launcher can do many naughty things etc. etc.
And note that if indeed giving apps access to SMS / RCS data is really such a desirable feature, Google could have introduced gate-keeping on that to make it more secure, rather than gate-keeping sideloading. For example, their current proposal says that they will allow sideloading with special Google Accounts. Instead of that, why not make it so that an app can access SMS / RCS only when that option is allowed when you have a special Google Account?
The point is that they want to avoid adding any barriers where a user's private data can't be easily accessed.
> Instead of that, why not make it so that an app can access SMS / RCS only when that option is allowed when you have a special Google Account?
Because then you still need a special Google Account to install your app when it needs to access SMS / RCS.
How about solving this problem in a way that doesn't involve Google rather than the owner of the device making decisions about what they can do with it? Like don't let the app request certain permissions by default, instead require the user to manually go into settings to turn them on, but if they do then it's still possible. Meanwhile apps that are installed from an app store can request that permission when the store allows it, so then users have an easy way to install apps like that, but in that case the app has been approved by Google or F-Droid etc. And the "be an app store" permission works the same way, so you have to do it once when you install F-Droid but then it can set those permissions the same as Google Play.
It's not Google's job to say no for you. It's only their job to make sure you know what you're saying yes to when you make the decision yourself.
>instead require the user to manually go into settings to turn them on, but if they do then it's still possible
They clearly addressed this option in the post, under sufficient social engineering pressure these settings will easily be circumvented. You'd need at least a 24h timeout or similar to mitigate the social pressure.
> They clearly addressed this option in the post, under sufficient social engineering pressure these settings will easily be circumvented. You'd need at least a 24h timeout or similar to mitigate the social pressure.
"Under sufficient social engineering pressure" is the thing that proves too much. A 24h timeout can't withstand that either. Nor can the ability for the user to use their phone to send money, or access their car or home, or read their private documents, or post to their social media account. What if someone convinces them to do any of those things? The only way to stop it is for the phone to never let them do it.
By the time you're done the phone is a brick that can't do anything useful. At some point you have to admit that adults are responsible for the choices they make.
>By the time you're done the phone is a brick that can't do anything useful. At some point you have to admit that adults are responsible for the choices they make.
Absolutely this! It's just nanny state all over again.
This is somehow even worse. It's strictly enforced with no regard for context, you don't have the constitutional rights you have against the government and you can't vote them out.
Markets are supposed to be better because you can switch to a competitor but that only applies when there is actually competition. Two companies both doing the same thing is not a competitive market.
It'd just devolve into security whack a mole about what permissions need those special account or not, ending with basically all of them making it the same as just needing dev verification anyway for anything remotely useful.
And despite that, you assuming that dev verification means no malware. The Play Store requires developers to register with the same verification measures we're talkingand malware is hardly unheard of there.
> alternate keyboards can steal your password, alternate browsers can have adware / malware, alternate launcher can do many naughty things etc. etc.
It's plausible that Google is done some of these things, like doing some sort of data mining on everything that you type for example (steal your password), and many official google apps have ads if you don't pay them
Definitely. All mobile keyboards become keyloggers if you enable the spellcheck feature or autocomplete / suggestion feature or any AI feature on it (because they need to collect data to "improve service"). Apple also has made changes to its mobile OS when it helps data collection. E.g Allowing messenger apps like WhatsApp to integrate with the Phone app ensures that Apple now knows who you call (voice / video) on WhatsApp.
> One of the best features of Android is that even built-in default applications like the keyboard, browser, launcher, etc can be replaced by alternative implementations.
When sideloading is barred all that can easily change. If you are forced to install everything from the Google Play Store, Google can easily bar such things, again in the name of "security" - alternate keyboards can steal your password, alternate browsers can have adware / malware, alternate launcher can do many naughty things etc. etc.
And note that if indeed giving apps access to SMS / RCS data is really such a desirable feature, Google could have introduced gate-keeping on that to make it more secure, rather than gate-keeping sideloading. For example, their current proposal says that they will allow sideloading with special Google Accounts. Instead of that, why not make it so that an app can access SMS / RCS only when that option is allowed when you have a special Google Account?
The point is that they want to avoid adding any barriers where a user's private data can't be easily accessed.