In principle I disagree. This is more of Google asserting control. Maybe it would be legitimate if the Play Store wasn’t an absolute mess, but I’d probably disagree even then.
As a user who paid for the hardware, you should expect to have full control of your device, including the option to install your own software from alternative sources, or even replace the OS. Google, Samsung, et al aren’t paying you for the device, it’s yours. The only reason I can see here is for more end user control and yet more personal data mining.
I only marginally excuse Apple and iOS because it was a walled garden up front and they’ve made no qualms about it, you know what you’re buying. They’ve also implemented at least some debate of user privacy and limiting data sharing.
Google released Android originally as a fairly open system and have been tightening the reins as they’ve achieved market dominance.
That’s absolutely a motivator for Google but simply leaving things open ended also means they can’t enforce anything at all.
Scammer: -releases scammer shady product-
Google: we don’t want you using our products to scam users. We are blocking this.
Scammer: fine, I’ll throw it on an alt store and create errors when it’s run on an unmodified device. I’ll just require users switch to scamROM.
Google: fine, we’ll let you in the play store.
No, the answer there is if scammers release scammy software and it’s not on the Play Store, that’s it. They’ve done their part and my job is to not be a tool and be careful if I’m sideloading, use things like VirusTotal, or otherwise just not install software that’s not vetted or open source where I can review the code. Nothing forces a user to use “ScamROM” or whatever example.
I don’t want Google policing my activity on my device.
I don’t want it either but you and I are not their only customers. We aren’t even in the majority of their customers. Most users want a Skinner box to look at porn and cat videos. That’s who Google is prioritizing.
In principle I disagree. This is more of Google asserting control. Maybe it would be legitimate if the Play Store wasn’t an absolute mess, but I’d probably disagree even then.
As a user who paid for the hardware, you should expect to have full control of your device, including the option to install your own software from alternative sources, or even replace the OS. Google, Samsung, et al aren’t paying you for the device, it’s yours. The only reason I can see here is for more end user control and yet more personal data mining.
I only marginally excuse Apple and iOS because it was a walled garden up front and they’ve made no qualms about it, you know what you’re buying. They’ve also implemented at least some debate of user privacy and limiting data sharing.
Google released Android originally as a fairly open system and have been tightening the reins as they’ve achieved market dominance.
That’s absolutely a motivator for Google but simply leaving things open ended also means they can’t enforce anything at all.
Scammer: -releases scammer shady product- Google: we don’t want you using our products to scam users. We are blocking this. Scammer: fine, I’ll throw it on an alt store and create errors when it’s run on an unmodified device. I’ll just require users switch to scamROM. Google: fine, we’ll let you in the play store.
See? There’s no winning here.
No, the answer there is if scammers release scammy software and it’s not on the Play Store, that’s it. They’ve done their part and my job is to not be a tool and be careful if I’m sideloading, use things like VirusTotal, or otherwise just not install software that’s not vetted or open source where I can review the code. Nothing forces a user to use “ScamROM” or whatever example.
I don’t want Google policing my activity on my device.
I don’t want it either but you and I are not their only customers. We aren’t even in the majority of their customers. Most users want a Skinner box to look at porn and cat videos. That’s who Google is prioritizing.