Fuck Google with a stiff wire brush.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    I read somewhere that GrapheneOS devs have a strategy which they believe will work – they strip out something or other about app/device attestation (?) from APK files before installing occurs, or the enforcement code itself from their spin of the OS, so sideloading (ie., user-controlled installation) can still work.

    I sure hope so… I think everyone in their respective country needs to scream at their local regulators about this.

    Of course, this will only help those whose devices GrapheneOS can run on.

    • Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      23 hours ago

      The GrapheneOS team is already in communications with an Android OEM to see if they can make a device that meets their specs, hopefully that bears fruit in a year or two.

    • other8026@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Google has already shared how apps’ developers will be verified. They’re adding another app that will have access to block installing apps or disable them. That won’t work on GrapheneOS because 1. the app won’t be installed and 2. the app won’t have that kind of privileged access.

      • other8026@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        21 hours ago

        The way Google will block apps with unverified developers won’t work on GrapheneOS. The change won’t be part of AOSP. On the stock OS, the functionality will be handled by another Google app that has privileged access. GrapheneOS won’t be affected directly.

    • ORbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I hope so as well. This debacle with RCS not working on GrapheneOS has been a real dick-punch. I really don’t want to go back to a stock OS.

      • rhythmisaprancer@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I have accepted no RCS. I miss some of the features, sure, but until I can get more than one person to use something like signal I’ll stick with insecure SMS thru a FOSS provider I guess.

      • other8026@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        21 hours ago

        It’s my understanding that RCS was fixed for most users after this update: https://grapheneos.org/releases#2025092700. You may need to grant permissions to Google Play Services first, then clear Google Messages’ storage, grant permissions to Google Messages, then try setting it up again.

        • ORbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          21 hours ago

          It was not. I have been on the Discord #Testing channel working with others to troubleshoot. Those steps do not work.

          It seemed to be fixed on the 20251003 release, a lot of people got it working for a while, including me. It died within 24 hours.

      • Chulk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        22 hours ago

        I thought the RCS thing was also happening on stock Android? Wasn’t it more of a carrier thing?

        • ORbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          22 hours ago

          It’s been largely fixed for stock with select regions still being affected. RCS is failing on GOS because the correct device ID isn’t getting reported and the verification services won’t authenticate the OS.

          It’ll work for about 24 hours, give or take, from a fresh installation, but after that RCS dies and no longer works. Any groups you were in will see you as departed and you will lose any future messages to that group.

          It’s pretty fucked.

          • Chulk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Thanks, I had no idea of the severity. I wonder if they’ll be able to fix it.

            I convinced my fiance to switch over to GOS because I’ve had moderate success with it for about a year now. So of course this happens as soon as she made the switch. Now she’s talking about getting an iPhone.

            • ORbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              22 hours ago

              Ain’t that how it always goes? Best I could do with mine was to get her to use Signal. Better than nothing, I guess.

  • nicgentile@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    23 hours ago

    This will face legal hurdles, especially in the EU and China. It reminds me of the time Microsoft played shell games with Chrome and Firefox and then lost eventually. That being said, it will kickstart a new mobile OS arms race, not necessarily to beat Android but for choices.

    • ISOmorph@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      21 hours ago

      This will definitely not be challenged in the EU. It’s the whole basis that makes chat control possible on a technical level.

      • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        20 hours ago

        The markets authority and antitrust offices are different people than the chat control people, they aren’t a unified organisation, they will probably argue about it.

      • nicgentile@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I’m surprises at how SailfishOS has a limited presence. This could be that moment. HarmonyOS is sick. I’ve seen it in action and it is on another league.

      • LedgeDrop@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        … except for the binary os blobs, that’ll need to be reverse engineered to run it on… well… any real hardware /s

          • LedgeDrop@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            As far as I understood from Graphene, when Google released the source code for Android 16, they also stripped all the reference code for Pixel devices.

            Historically, Google would ship the code for Pixel and a software emulator as “reference designs”. Now, it’s only shipped with the emulator.

            The Graphene Team needed to reconstruct the pixel code from the Android 15 release. Fortunately, the divergence between Android 15 and 16 was minimal, but I’m certain the division will widen as time goes by.

  • NeedyPlatter@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    22 hours ago

    sigh and here I was looking forward to switching back to Android since I missed being able to install APKS…

  • Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Couldn’t f droid in theory request their own key?

    This is a terrible situation, but surviving for a few more years isn’t a bad idea

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Here’s the relevant quote:

        The F-Droid project cannot require that developers register their apps through Google, but at the same time, we cannot “take over” the application identifiers for the open-source apps we distribute, as that would effectively seize exclusive distribution rights to those applications.

        I think that last sentence is saying that it would work, if developers decided to exclusively distribute to F-Droid and effectively gave up control over the app to the F-Droid team.

        I’m thinking there might be a possibility to register the same app under two different identifiers, one controlled by F-Droid, the other by developer.
        But yeah, this makes some things more complex and might be deemed malicious behaviour by Google.