I'm just surprised how the responses here(including the original announcement post) at HN of all places are mild and at times indifferent to the fact that we are about to give up control of our devices and make Google the arbitrator of what we can run on them. That ship may have sailed for ios but it hasn't for android yet.
This is the time to ask what we can do about this, how do we stop it. How do we raise awareness among people, among law makers or people whose opinions matter to make Google take notice.
I'm all for alternatives like linux phones but it's not realistic in the timeframe. It will be a sad day if this comes to pass without least bit of resistance.
>This is the time to ask what we can do about this, how do we stop it. How do we raise awareness among people, among law makers or people whose opinions matter to make Google take notice.
You and me don't get a vote on the Google board. The current government is not what I'd call fiercely pro-consumer. People say that money talks, but what's really in this season is tacky golden bribes; not an area where consumer advocates have a comparative advantage.
Raising awareness for a change that Google is already communicating widely and openly, is unlikely to scare Google very much.
If you want to take this seriously, it's going to need something beyond the usual token resistance that consists of angry social media posts.
If you sell your new platform as "open" to gain market share and then break that promise of openness after you successfully drive competing platforms out of the market, that sounds a lot like fraudulent marketing to me.
The mild response shouldn't surprise you. I think the majority of American consumers and developers use iOS and they have little to no problem with the highly controlled and monopolized system.
Apple controls ridiculous detail of your application and there are many developers who think that it is necessary for Apple to keep the high quality of iOS.
Actually I was shocked when one of my coworkers told me that it is a very good idea and Google should have done it sooner.
"I'm just surprised how the responses here(including the original announcement post) at HN of all places are mild and at times indifferent to the fact that we are about to give up control of our devices and make Google the arbitrator of what we can run on them"
Some might argue the corporate OS[1] user never had "control of [their] devices"
As in the past, more hassles are to come for Android users, but some might doubt this idea that users currently have control or ever had control
Why the hassles
Because the user has no control over the OS
The corporation might increase or decrease the hassles, making users happy or unhappy (or indifferent), but either way the user never has control
In a non-corporate OS the user can generally edit the OS to her liking
Introducing hassles in a non-corporate would cause users who were annoyed to remove them
In other words, if users choose a non-corporate OS where users have control then there is no need to "raise awareness among people, among law makers or people whose opinions matter to make Google take notice"
1. For example, the ones from Silicon Valley and Redmond
The solution here is to reject Google devices and switch to AOSP-derived distributions like Graphene and Lineage that patch out such arbitrary restrictions. You can buy a Pixel (ironically), flash GrapheneOS, and enjoy a phone that runs most Android apps without giving Google any of your data.
this solution is not available to the majority of people. ok, well, they could buy a phone from china with a chinese android version. but i don't know if i would want that.
They're slowly tightening the screws on alternative Android builds as well. Most recently they removed distribution of factory builds for Pixels, which are used for figuring out drivers and such.
I was an iPhone user from 2009 to 2019. In 2019, when the iTunes backup from my failed iPhone 4S wouldn't restore to an iPhone SE (it made the phone boot loop) I got frustrated and went Android.
I decided to "sideload" all non-stock software on my Android phone. I never have setup a Google Play account. I kept all the APKs for the software I loaded over the years that I used that phone.
I just got a new Android phone a couple of weeks ago. I was able to just load all the software I use day-to-day from APKs (except for a few that are, apparently, processor-specific). I imported my SMS, contacts, and call logs using a nice FOSS app[0]. It felt remarkably like moving to a new PC does. It was nice.
I am really sad Google is ending this moving forward. Jackasses.
I recently joined it as I hated feeling powerless about this change in Android. Becoming one more working on a third option is very freeing. I'd recommend it, plus Ubuntu Touch is surprisingly a nice OS.
I got a new Android phone recently as well. I am trying to see how far I can get without signing into a Google or Motorola (this is a Motorola phone) account. So far so good. I can't download any apps from the app store that were not already included when I activated the phone but I can use fdroid so I am good for the most part.
I use Android over iphone precisely because I'm free to install whatever apps I want.
With this planned change my reasons to ditch Android and go to Apple increase dramatically. Why would i want half assed google walled garden when I could get the Apple one?
Sucks for the people who can't afford an Apple device and honestly sucks for all of us who enjoyed installing all kinds of apps on our devices.
Why go from a devil to another? Consider Ubuntu Touch it's actually pretty good and the dev community is really welcoming. Feel like the old school linux groups.
Combined with bad security practice from OEMs, preinstalled bloatware, app fragmentation (I love having Samsung "Phone" app and stock phone app at the same time) and customer service (try replacing your phone battery and compare the experience of ubreakifix and Apple store), I don't see a reason to go Android.
(P.S. people who cannot afford the latest iPhone can always purchase a two year old used/"refurbished" phone. It's a solid choice and many people do that. The fact that you can now add Apple Care to 4 year old device makes this more viable.)
I must live in a parallel world because here it’s significantly easier to get an Android phone fixed than an iPhone. Plus you don’t have to pay Apple extortionate price for parts.
Not "always", Apple doesn't provide official warranty in my country, and even replacing batteries carries significant risk. Forget about more involved types of servicing. There are lots of places like that.
I feel sorry for you. I have experienced their support in both Germany and The Netherlands and it's stellar. You can call them, get someone on the line in a few minutes and they will genuinely try to help you. One time there was an issue with a transaction (amount subtracted twice), within a few minutes of calling I was in contact with someone from their finance department who not only solved the issue, they also called back a few days later to verify that I got the refund and to check if I was happy with their help.
Another time my wife wanted Apple Care, but decided on the last day and the website didn't offer the option anymore. She called, they were really helpful and again called back a few days later to check everything is good on our end.
They are a big-tech company, but actually being able to call someone and getting swift help is refreshing.
Edit: I only now realize the accidental pun: you probably won't be getting 'Swift' help. :p
I have an iphone and I feel a frequent nagging in the back of my head to switch to android despite the serious created by ecosystem lock-in and it's solely for the benefit of sideloading. Like you said, why would I leave apple's refined and increasingly customizable walled garden for google's half-assed one? Especially when Google is explicitly an ad company (I know apple isn't that much better).
Same. Going to go for the prettier jailed garden instead of the uglier one. Can pay the cost of ugly with freedom. But if you are gonna get jailed anyways, why not choose the one with better interior decoration ?
Yeah, this is exactly my reasoning too. And with Google making it harder for OSes like GrapheneOS to run on Pixel devices, my next device will have to be an Apple one. There's nothing left in the Android ecosystem for me.
Yup, same here. I've even talked family members into joining me. If this goes through and locks me out of installing things that aren't officially signed, I'll be done with Android.
At least, the standard version. If Samsung or someone keeps it open, I'd probably move to that.
Well to be fair even if Android were completely open: In the US, your phone is still beholden to small number carriers. They get to decide what devices can connect to their network. This determines much of the hardware and software of the phones on their networks.
So ultimately they own the devices that connect to them. That's why I've already stopped paying for phones and just get free ones when offered. If I do pay for one again it'll just be the cheapest Chinese one available.
Since the 6s, iPhones get 6 or 7 versions of iOS (including their release version), which puts them at about 7-8 years of full support less whatever features (like Apple Intelligence) don't get support on some hardware. Before the 6s, it was lower but the hardware was also changing a lot faster (like going from 32-bit to 64-bit ARM).
But for security updates they've pushed it up to 10 years. The 6s, 2015, got a security update this month.
They're actively supporting (at least security updates) iOS 15, 16, 18, and now of course 26. 17 was skipped because no devices lost support with it, everything that could run 17 can run 18.
I am out of the loop with the entire thing. I used to an android dev back then. Google's shenanigans is the reason why I left mobile dev. Does this mean I cannot even compile and install apps on my phone from android studio?
So I can just adb install any apk I want, no matter if it's a Google authenticated developer who signed the app? So f-droid would continue to work fine so long as they install via adb instead of the intent mechanism or whatever it currently is?
AFAIU your device will no longer pass their treacherous "Play Integrity", which means that many banking and government applications will no longer work. For me it's a complete deal breaker because that's 99% of why I own a smartphone at all.
Apple is prohibitively expensive here, there's no official warranty and much difficulty with doing quality battery replacements, so I will probably have to own two phones.
That's not true - you can enable developer mode and install apps via ADB without affecting Play Integrity for other apps on your device. You can test this today.
Play Integrity is focused on checking the OS is original and the runtime environment of the app (your banking app in this case) isn't being messed with. Installing other apps as a developer isn't related to that. If you're not flashing a custom OS or modifying your bank's APK you'll be fine.
(You _should_ be able to use custom OSs and Play Integrity is awful, to be clear - but not because of anything directly relate to normal app development & sideloading)
It seems that won't affect Play Integrity for now. But I wonder if we'll eventually see rooted (GrapheneOS etc.) phones installing patches to banking apps to fool them into thinking they're legit. Hacked Nintendo Switches already do something similar.
That's available right now as Frida plugins etc. The problem is that remote attestation is done on the server and bank backend API would be able to call Google Play API to check the attestation and deny access. Nothing you can patch on the app side could change that.
You can. Install a work profile on the device (You can use a third party app like Island) to do this. Then you can install apps into their own sandbox.
The target is more the likes of f-droid or the Amazon Store or Epic going "We don't like the Play Store policy, download Fortnite.apk from us", than developers compiling stuff and loading them on their own phone
> Why would i want half assed google walled garden when I could get the Apple one?
Can’t disagree more.
Android has both better phones and better UX. Apple is usually lagging the Asian brands by years.
I went from a Pixel 3A to an iPhone 13 and just switched back to a Pixel 10 Pro and gosh the iPhone was a complete wreck. It’s even worse with their new UI.
Unless you are somehow stuck in the Apple ecosystem, I don’t understand why people pay more for it. The idea than the Android experience is somehow subpar when all Apple has done for the past five years is merely copying it is crazy to me.
Same boat. Wouldn't be hard to switch either - Android and iOS are virtually indistinguishable on the UI side now. That was the last thing holding me back.
Just remember that the play store was ruled a monopoly and the app store wasn't because the "app store doesn't even allow competition, so how could it be anti-competitive?"
It's no surprise that Google will start mirroring Apple more if closed ecosystems cannot be monopolies.
If you promise consumers that your new platform is an "open" one, you are creating a new market where devices will be made by multiple vendors and antitrust law will apply.
Google chose accelerated platform growth in exchange for being bound by antitrust restrictions.
If you create a new platform that that customers know in advance is a walled garden, like XBox, you do not face the same restrictions.
That's how the existing law works.
If you don't like how the existing law works, you have to do what the EU did and change it.
I assume the other commentor is saying "it's a joke" that the courts are holding google to stricter rules as to how they operate because the OS is more open (in that third parties can run other browsers and software). Google is responding by locking their platform down to be more like apple's walled-garden, so they avoid future scrutiny. Ironically, anti-competition laws (as written) are encouraging google to perform anti-competitive practices because the courts would rather google control the entire OS rather than makes default-software-deals with third party device manufacturers.
If the court is doing its job properly, it shouldn't be considering this at all. Their job is not to decide what outcome they find preferable. Their job is to assess compliance with the laws. If you don't like the outcome, then you ought to be complaining to your legislators to fix the broken antitrust laws, rather than saying that the courts are evil.
Of course, that's how things are supposed to work. It doesn't always work out that way. But let's at least try to use the system as it was intended rather than trying to force it even further out of spec just to get your own preferred outcome.
And the funniest part? The people that decried the 30% cut and went up to fight against Apple and Google themselves are going to be forcibly taking a 50% cut on their own user-generated content after a years' grace or so.
"Developers will ordinarily earn 50% of the V-Bucks value from sales in their islands, but from December 2025 through the end of 2026, the rate will be 100%."
The government isn't worried about control, but economics.
Google verifying developer identities but not controlling distribution, satisfies all relevant economic considerations. If it was about not letting Google control Android, they certainly wouldn't be letting Google decide the development roadmap. (The $25 fee doesn't count - the government has no problem charging multiples of that for anyone who drives a car or wants an ID card.)
As for Apple, they still have their antitrust lawsuit ongoing. Apple v Epic was only the first fire.
It just keeps getting worse. I think this is going to single-handedly destroy the OSS ecosystem that Android enjoys. It is incredibly frustrating watching this play out without having an alternative to migrate to.
Because it’s one thing to publicly show what you want and another to be forced to show everything that you have because you’re not a terrorist, are you? Have you though if children?
It would be righteous for it to destroy all of Android, not just its ecosystem.
The obvious alternative is Linux phones. Granted, the tech sets us back by maybe two decades, but at least we're almost at the stage where we can rapidfire develop our own apps or open source apps using LLM assistance.
I'd love to use GrapheneOS but I have to stand firm on not giving Google any money (at least directly). I really wish I could use GrapheneOS on non-Google hardware.
Graphene is planning to make their own phone though, so that may work for you. I don't use Google software at all, not even their search engine or email, but I find that buying Google hardware is acceptable since the bootloader is unlocked.
The survival of GrapheneOS is far from guaranteed for multiple reasons, but sure, it's nice while it lasts and stays updated with patches. I think Graphene might benefit from having additional hardware interoperability, and additional security layers that defend it even in the face of delayed patches from upstream.
The chipmakers. In my dystopia, there are military permanently stationed at all of them, making sure that nothing gets out of there that can run unauthorized OSes or LLMs. Innovation Force.
> I think this is going to single-handedly destroy the OSS ecosystem that Android enjoys.
This was always the plan. Co-opt FLOSS with services running on FLOSS platforms that are not, themselves, FLOSS. Make it insanely unattractive to run actual FLOSS services on the otherwise FLOSS platform. At that point, it might as well be what Apple does.
There's a reason why rms was insistent upon GPL, but he never did have a real answer to that sort of corporate behavior.
Yes, so much for portability, the portability ship now is in the hand of two corporates, that do not care about what a user wants. The convenience, it offers, depends on the profitability of these corporates.
Well, I do not want to just in to one walled garden to another, so, I think, this is the end of portable devices for me. That is the stick, that Google and Apple both using to keep us in their hands, so, I'm going to do my best to say: No thank you, and F*ck off.
I might not ever buy a flagship or high-end smartphone anymore, but get a smaller laptop, and keep an old or cheap Android handy, which will have very little personal data in it. I can easily tether the Laptop with my mobile and do most of the things that are needed.
Yes, for bank applications, and some other applications, that requires app, I will keep the cheap Android handy. But, it not a personal device anymore, the thing that I loved about Android, it's just there, because it has to.
And I am done with a mobile device till a true Linux based mobile become available.
A key question here is if installation of Google Apps can fail verification if the device is offline, or if they have some magic local public key chain of pre-authed all OK keys.
DEVELOPER_VERIFICATION_FAILED_REASON_DEVELOPER_BLOCKED is very clearly the purpose of the whole thing. Presumably this one can be triggered on an already installed app - a key question being how that triggering occurs. i.e. will the Play Store act to push out details of developers that are now blocked so devices can act on it?
> Presumably this one can be triggered on an already installed app - a key question being how that triggering occurs. i.e. will the Play Store act to push out details of developers that are now blocked so devices can act on it?
Your "presumably" is doing a _lot_ of work; these strings are from the PackageInstaller, and go along with all of the other reasons you can't install an APK.
Historically, apps that were pulled from the Play Store and developer accounts revoked due to malware do _not_ affect apps on the end-user device, and there's no current sign of this changing with this specific project. Google have generally achieved this goal using Play Protect, the separate app/service which _can_ download revocation lists and signal end-users to delete malicious apps, and there's no indication this will change.
Android has a bunch of special signing keys (vendor, Google, that kind of thing) that get special treatment. I assume the same will apply here.
I don't have much of a problem with developers getting blocked, blocking malware shops is the entire point.
Installations failing because of a network problem is different, though. The Android ecosystem can trivially leverage the existing app certificates + occasionally updated CRLs to verify app developers. Android needing to call to the net before installing an APK seems over the top.
> I don't have much of a problem with developers getting blocked...
for building an alternative YouTube frontend. Or a torrenting app. Or due to sanctions / trade wars. (If you think these can't happen to you personally, imagine a Mega-Trump who's even Trumpier than Trump getting elected US president.)
What's malware to Google isn't necessarily malware to the user.
It will work the same way Play Protect does for blocking installation of malware. I don't think it will trigger on already installed apps, as I think package verifies require an actual update to the apk before they will trigger.
As long as any old apk can be installed over ADB, f-droid just needs to release a desktop app, and I'm gtg. Yeah, it's a little inconvenient, and hopefully just a stopgap until Linux phones are viable, but still better than Apple.
I really hope this will be the final straw to break the camel’s back and people will see that native platforms bring nothing but lock in and misery (I’m an Android native developer, don’t bother telling me about “native experience”).
At this point, the only reason I have an Android phone is GrapheneOS. Fortunately it is not impacted by this. The day Google manages to make GrapheneOS unusable, I'm off to the iPhone.
Avoid using your phone, don't install apps, don't rely on it for anything, and stick it in a drawer most of the time. Phones have ALWAYS been a bad bet for privacy, and we've been losing this cat and mouse game for years. I agree that what's happening lately seems like a real watershed moment, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time.
Maybe I missed it, but assuming GrapheneOS doesn't adhere to this verification, or provides some OS-level way to disable it, what makes Graphene worse after this change?
GrapheneOS is only allowed to live because google lets it. This signals a wider ecosystem change that tells us that GrapheneOS is going to stop being usable when this generation of hardware dies. This generation or maybe the one after it.
What do you mean with "Google lets it"? GrapheneOS is based on AOSP.
GrapheneOS only runs on the Google Pixels, and Google may decide to render future Pixels unusable for GrapheneOS (e.g. by preventing to unlock/relock the bootloader).
But another Android manufacturer could get to the point where GrapheneOS endorses them. It feels like it shouldn't be that hard for an Android manufacturer, and they would immediately get quite some attention. Maybe not mainstream attention, but largely profitable, I think.
GrapheneOS exists only because the Pixel's bootloader can be unlocked. Google could remove that option anytime, making it impossible to install GrapheneOS.
There's a part of me that wishes Firefox OS remained viable and overcame its problems where it could've become a viable alternative. I'm hopeful for the future of Linux phones, but I've yet to see a product that looks like it's reliable and works well..
I'll add to this that libadwaita is really good, and manages to scale applications between desktop and mobile extremely well. Far better than any other mobile-desktop convergence I've seen before. Flatpak also offers a very good method for distributing apps in an easy and largely decentralized way.
The problem extends far deeper than just FOSS for mobile and IoT. There isn't competitive OSHW. The entire pipeline for silicon hardware development (PCB dev is relatively easy) is virtually locked away behind gates that require identity and/or address verification, node-locked trial licenses or sometimes big license fees paid to one or more big 3 EDA vendors. And that's even before getting anywhere need talking to a fab.
If memory serves me right, in early days of Android, Google engineers were writing drivers on behalf of manufacturers because OEM drivers were too buggy.
Think about the amount of work and the kind of talent this requires.
If you are starting from scratch today as a no-name company, I doubt any hardware manufacturers even want to talk to you.
This is orthogonal to GrapheneOS; GrapheneOS's utility is being eroded by Device Attestation, but this change is irrelevant as GrapheneOS will already fail strict attestation.
Buy a Linux phone or contribute to development of the Linux phone ecosystem, and accept that while it may lag behind in features, it makes up for that in freedom and privacy. Potentially keep a cheap Apple/Android around for stuff like banking software that only works on them.
It's not like Android and iOS are the only options exactly.
So I never spend much on phones, but I just got a Fairphone 4 running E/OS , which is .... like running android, except it blocks tracking by default, and you're in control. Some fairphones come with e/os pre-installed, but installing it isn't even all too fiddly, you can do it direct from chrome(ium).
And you can take it apart with your fingers and a screwdriver!
They _are_ the only options if you want banking to work reliably, which is essential for me at least due to 3DS requiring mobile app verification for transactions. I have to run stock android for pretty much this reason only. Everything else I could manage with, but not being locked out of certain banks.
I've been in IT long enough to recognize this pattern. Every "convenient" lock-in becomes an expensive problem later - something you're definitely experiencing now!
My advice: don't get locked in in the first place yesterday. Or second best, start exploring ways out today. Push back on your bank - odds are they simply haven't had enough complaints yet. Demand alternate authentication methods. Fall back to web banking or even paper banking. Shop around - banks are IT companies like any other these days, and there are definitely banks with better terms.
Fortunately I'm in the Netherlands where web banking still works fine, so that's what I'm doing. Where are you located?
I bought a cheap burner phone for the banking and government apps. It's connected to a Google account with fake details and stays in a drawer by my desk.
This 100%. If it comes that that in the U.S. and there is no other practical alternative, I will buy the cheapest Android phone I can find to run those locked down apps on it when needed, and leave it powered off the rest of the time. All my personal business will continue to be done on my Graphene device, that's non-negotiable.
Google, your platform currently does not inspire any privacy. It has no ecosystem going for it (workarounds do not count, I want Apple levels everything-works-together-100%-out-of-the-box). Your Watch and other products have repeatedly been called lukewarm, and the Fitbit integration with Google integration was the last straw that pushed me off your watch platform.
If you want me to buy an iOS clone with no competitive edges, I would rather stick with the real deal. At least Apple has been consistent with their views about what iOS is since day 1.
I recently put my finger on what has been changing lately, especially after the assassination:
We used to say, that online speech, is not the same as in-person speech.
Online, you can yell horrible things, imply that somebody should "do something" about another person, but police showing up at your door is a tyranny, even if those same things on a street corner would've had you on involuntary commitment. Online, a developer might build an app that pulls off phishing scams, but they have the complete right to be anonymous. Meanwhile, the person cutting your hair, preparing your food, or even selling you flowers needs registration, if only for taxes. In person was a "real" threat, while online was just "venting," "trolling."
That's dying. Online is now the real world. With real world consequences.
I don't know what you mean. I don't know in what world you could say half the things that were on BlueSky, post-assassination, without riot police being called and people getting arrested, assuming they were physically present and saying the same things.
The US? We have the first amendment here and you can actively and energetically endorse violence. You can't cross over into coordinating violence, which is the "eminent lawless action" part. But you can certainly suggest it, or demand it. Celebrating it is sometimes almost mandatory.
Can't understand how that relates to this other than as an awkward, contrived excuse for bad faith pearl clutching about checks notes Bluesky.
Are you reading your own words? You're saying online is now offline because of consequences meanwhile the Bluesky posters you're complaining about are not actually being arrested by riot police.
I'm just surprised how the responses here(including the original announcement post) at HN of all places are mild and at times indifferent to the fact that we are about to give up control of our devices and make Google the arbitrator of what we can run on them. That ship may have sailed for ios but it hasn't for android yet.
This is the time to ask what we can do about this, how do we stop it. How do we raise awareness among people, among law makers or people whose opinions matter to make Google take notice.
I'm all for alternatives like linux phones but it's not realistic in the timeframe. It will be a sad day if this comes to pass without least bit of resistance.
>This is the time to ask what we can do about this, how do we stop it. How do we raise awareness among people, among law makers or people whose opinions matter to make Google take notice.
You and me don't get a vote on the Google board. The current government is not what I'd call fiercely pro-consumer. People say that money talks, but what's really in this season is tacky golden bribes; not an area where consumer advocates have a comparative advantage.
Raising awareness for a change that Google is already communicating widely and openly, is unlikely to scare Google very much.
If you want to take this seriously, it's going to need something beyond the usual token resistance that consists of angry social media posts.
If you sell your new platform as "open" to gain market share and then break that promise of openness after you successfully drive competing platforms out of the market, that sounds a lot like fraudulent marketing to me.
Sounds like standard modern business practices to me.
The mild response shouldn't surprise you. I think the majority of American consumers and developers use iOS and they have little to no problem with the highly controlled and monopolized system.
Apple controls ridiculous detail of your application and there are many developers who think that it is necessary for Apple to keep the high quality of iOS.
Actually I was shocked when one of my coworkers told me that it is a very good idea and Google should have done it sooner.
"I'm just surprised how the responses here(including the original announcement post) at HN of all places are mild and at times indifferent to the fact that we are about to give up control of our devices and make Google the arbitrator of what we can run on them"
Some might argue the corporate OS[1] user never had "control of [their] devices"
As in the past, more hassles are to come for Android users, but some might doubt this idea that users currently have control or ever had control
Why the hassles
Because the user has no control over the OS
The corporation might increase or decrease the hassles, making users happy or unhappy (or indifferent), but either way the user never has control
In a non-corporate OS the user can generally edit the OS to her liking
Introducing hassles in a non-corporate would cause users who were annoyed to remove them
In other words, if users choose a non-corporate OS where users have control then there is no need to "raise awareness among people, among law makers or people whose opinions matter to make Google take notice"
1. For example, the ones from Silicon Valley and Redmond
The solution here is to reject Google devices and switch to AOSP-derived distributions like Graphene and Lineage that patch out such arbitrary restrictions. You can buy a Pixel (ironically), flash GrapheneOS, and enjoy a phone that runs most Android apps without giving Google any of your data.
this solution is not available to the majority of people. ok, well, they could buy a phone from china with a chinese android version. but i don't know if i would want that.
They're slowly tightening the screws on alternative Android builds as well. Most recently they removed distribution of factory builds for Pixels, which are used for figuring out drivers and such.
This is immensely frustrating to me.
I was an iPhone user from 2009 to 2019. In 2019, when the iTunes backup from my failed iPhone 4S wouldn't restore to an iPhone SE (it made the phone boot loop) I got frustrated and went Android.
I decided to "sideload" all non-stock software on my Android phone. I never have setup a Google Play account. I kept all the APKs for the software I loaded over the years that I used that phone.
I just got a new Android phone a couple of weeks ago. I was able to just load all the software I use day-to-day from APKs (except for a few that are, apparently, processor-specific). I imported my SMS, contacts, and call logs using a nice FOSS app[0]. It felt remarkably like moving to a new PC does. It was nice.
I am really sad Google is ending this moving forward. Jackasses.
[0] https://github.com/tmo1/sms-ie
Consider becoming part of UTports community.
I recently joined it as I hated feeling powerless about this change in Android. Becoming one more working on a third option is very freeing. I'd recommend it, plus Ubuntu Touch is surprisingly a nice OS.
I got a new Android phone recently as well. I am trying to see how far I can get without signing into a Google or Motorola (this is a Motorola phone) account. So far so good. I can't download any apps from the app store that were not already included when I activated the phone but I can use fdroid so I am good for the most part.
I use Android over iphone precisely because I'm free to install whatever apps I want.
With this planned change my reasons to ditch Android and go to Apple increase dramatically. Why would i want half assed google walled garden when I could get the Apple one?
Sucks for the people who can't afford an Apple device and honestly sucks for all of us who enjoyed installing all kinds of apps on our devices.
Why go from a devil to another? Consider Ubuntu Touch it's actually pretty good and the dev community is really welcoming. Feel like the old school linux groups.
Same.
Combined with bad security practice from OEMs, preinstalled bloatware, app fragmentation (I love having Samsung "Phone" app and stock phone app at the same time) and customer service (try replacing your phone battery and compare the experience of ubreakifix and Apple store), I don't see a reason to go Android.
(P.S. people who cannot afford the latest iPhone can always purchase a two year old used/"refurbished" phone. It's a solid choice and many people do that. The fact that you can now add Apple Care to 4 year old device makes this more viable.)
I must live in a parallel world because here it’s significantly easier to get an Android phone fixed than an iPhone. Plus you don’t have to pay Apple extortionate price for parts.
Apple also has great long term support.
They just shipped security updates for the iPhone 6S which came out 10 years ago.
Not "always", Apple doesn't provide official warranty in my country, and even replacing batteries carries significant risk. Forget about more involved types of servicing. There are lots of places like that.
I feel sorry for you. I have experienced their support in both Germany and The Netherlands and it's stellar. You can call them, get someone on the line in a few minutes and they will genuinely try to help you. One time there was an issue with a transaction (amount subtracted twice), within a few minutes of calling I was in contact with someone from their finance department who not only solved the issue, they also called back a few days later to verify that I got the refund and to check if I was happy with their help.
Another time my wife wanted Apple Care, but decided on the last day and the website didn't offer the option anymore. She called, they were really helpful and again called back a few days later to check everything is good on our end.
They are a big-tech company, but actually being able to call someone and getting swift help is refreshing.
Edit: I only now realize the accidental pun: you probably won't be getting 'Swift' help. :p
I have an iphone and I feel a frequent nagging in the back of my head to switch to android despite the serious created by ecosystem lock-in and it's solely for the benefit of sideloading. Like you said, why would I leave apple's refined and increasingly customizable walled garden for google's half-assed one? Especially when Google is explicitly an ad company (I know apple isn't that much better).
Same. Going to go for the prettier jailed garden instead of the uglier one. Can pay the cost of ugly with freedom. But if you are gonna get jailed anyways, why not choose the one with better interior decoration ?
Yeah, this is exactly my reasoning too. And with Google making it harder for OSes like GrapheneOS to run on Pixel devices, my next device will have to be an Apple one. There's nothing left in the Android ecosystem for me.
Yup, same here. I've even talked family members into joining me. If this goes through and locks me out of installing things that aren't officially signed, I'll be done with Android.
At least, the standard version. If Samsung or someone keeps it open, I'd probably move to that.
I could never give Apple another dime, they're the ones responsible for enabling and normalizing this.
And if Android's removal of rights lags 5-10 years behind Apple again in the future, that's a win.
Well to be fair even if Android were completely open: In the US, your phone is still beholden to small number carriers. They get to decide what devices can connect to their network. This determines much of the hardware and software of the phones on their networks.
So ultimately they own the devices that connect to them. That's why I've already stopped paying for phones and just get free ones when offered. If I do pay for one again it'll just be the cheapest Chinese one available.
For one, I get to use a pre-paid phone, and with the price of an iPhone I get one or two Androids, which always get used until they break down.
For completeness, how long is that? iPhones tend to get security updates for, what, 7 years? Consistently?
Since the 6s, iPhones get 6 or 7 versions of iOS (including their release version), which puts them at about 7-8 years of full support less whatever features (like Apple Intelligence) don't get support on some hardware. Before the 6s, it was lower but the hardware was also changing a lot faster (like going from 32-bit to 64-bit ARM).
But for security updates they've pushed it up to 10 years. The 6s, 2015, got a security update this month.
They're actively supporting (at least security updates) iOS 15, 16, 18, and now of course 26. 17 was skipped because no devices lost support with it, everything that could run 17 can run 18.
I have phones between Android 12 and Android 15, they still get the updates that are available from PlayStore.
Everything else, it isn't like I am a public figure that has to have ultimate security devices.
I am out of the loop with the entire thing. I used to an android dev back then. Google's shenanigans is the reason why I left mobile dev. Does this mean I cannot even compile and install apps on my phone from android studio?
No, they're not removing ADB install capabilities
So I can just adb install any apk I want, no matter if it's a Google authenticated developer who signed the app? So f-droid would continue to work fine so long as they install via adb instead of the intent mechanism or whatever it currently is?
AFAIU your device will no longer pass their treacherous "Play Integrity", which means that many banking and government applications will no longer work. For me it's a complete deal breaker because that's 99% of why I own a smartphone at all.
Apple is prohibitively expensive here, there's no official warranty and much difficulty with doing quality battery replacements, so I will probably have to own two phones.
That's not true - you can enable developer mode and install apps via ADB without affecting Play Integrity for other apps on your device. You can test this today.
Play Integrity is focused on checking the OS is original and the runtime environment of the app (your banking app in this case) isn't being messed with. Installing other apps as a developer isn't related to that. If you're not flashing a custom OS or modifying your bank's APK you'll be fine.
(You _should_ be able to use custom OSs and Play Integrity is awful, to be clear - but not because of anything directly relate to normal app development & sideloading)
It seems that won't affect Play Integrity for now. But I wonder if we'll eventually see rooted (GrapheneOS etc.) phones installing patches to banking apps to fool them into thinking they're legit. Hacked Nintendo Switches already do something similar.
That's available right now as Frida plugins etc. The problem is that remote attestation is done on the server and bank backend API would be able to call Google Play API to check the attestation and deny access. Nothing you can patch on the app side could change that.
I somehow wish both things we working - as in "sandboxed" / "isolate" one from another (if that makes any sense).
So I can install my F-Droid on one of the partition, and actual personal stuff on the other. Bit like my Chromebook with Crostini.
You can. Install a work profile on the device (You can use a third party app like Island) to do this. Then you can install apps into their own sandbox.
That's not true. Enabling developer options or installing via ADB won't impact Play Integrity
The target is more the likes of f-droid or the Amazon Store or Epic going "We don't like the Play Store policy, download Fortnite.apk from us", than developers compiling stuff and loading them on their own phone
> Why would i want half assed google walled garden when I could get the Apple one?
Can’t disagree more.
Android has both better phones and better UX. Apple is usually lagging the Asian brands by years.
I went from a Pixel 3A to an iPhone 13 and just switched back to a Pixel 10 Pro and gosh the iPhone was a complete wreck. It’s even worse with their new UI.
Unless you are somehow stuck in the Apple ecosystem, I don’t understand why people pay more for it. The idea than the Android experience is somehow subpar when all Apple has done for the past five years is merely copying it is crazy to me.
> Android has both better phones and better UX.
extreme, EXTREME minority opinion stated as fact
> when all Apple has done for the past five years is merely copying it
This is a popular refrain but never passes the sniff test. Android has nothing equivalent to AirPods, airdrop, find my, list goes on and on.
Same boat. Wouldn't be hard to switch either - Android and iOS are virtually indistinguishable on the UI side now. That was the last thing holding me back.
Just remember that the play store was ruled a monopoly and the app store wasn't because the "app store doesn't even allow competition, so how could it be anti-competitive?"
It's no surprise that Google will start mirroring Apple more if closed ecosystems cannot be monopolies.
If you promise consumers that your new platform is an "open" one, you are creating a new market where devices will be made by multiple vendors and antitrust law will apply.
Google chose accelerated platform growth in exchange for being bound by antitrust restrictions.
If you create a new platform that that customers know in advance is a walled garden, like XBox, you do not face the same restrictions.
That's how the existing law works.
If you don't like how the existing law works, you have to do what the EU did and change it.
Our legal system is such a joke.
You mean, it does not have competition?
I assume the other commentor is saying "it's a joke" that the courts are holding google to stricter rules as to how they operate because the OS is more open (in that third parties can run other browsers and software). Google is responding by locking their platform down to be more like apple's walled-garden, so they avoid future scrutiny. Ironically, anti-competition laws (as written) are encouraging google to perform anti-competitive practices because the courts would rather google control the entire OS rather than makes default-software-deals with third party device manufacturers.
the courts would rather google control
If the court is doing its job properly, it shouldn't be considering this at all. Their job is not to decide what outcome they find preferable. Their job is to assess compliance with the laws. If you don't like the outcome, then you ought to be complaining to your legislators to fix the broken antitrust laws, rather than saying that the courts are evil.
Of course, that's how things are supposed to work. It doesn't always work out that way. But let's at least try to use the system as it was intended rather than trying to force it even further out of spec just to get your own preferred outcome.
The courts judge violations of antitrust law.
If you create an open platform it is subject to antitrust law.
Ask Microsoft about the difference in the legal restrictions on what they are allowed to do on their Windows platform vs their Xbox platform.
It does, but open borders are for capital, not you.
[dead]
And the funniest part? The people that decried the 30% cut and went up to fight against Apple and Google themselves are going to be forcibly taking a 50% cut on their own user-generated content after a years' grace or so.
"Developers will ordinarily earn 50% of the V-Bucks value from sales in their islands, but from December 2025 through the end of 2026, the rate will be 100%."
https://www.fortnite.com/news/fortnite-developers-will-soon-...
But hey, I can surely launch my own storefront to sell in-game items on top of Fortnite right?
Right?
Oh.
The government isn't worried about control, but economics.
Google verifying developer identities but not controlling distribution, satisfies all relevant economic considerations. If it was about not letting Google control Android, they certainly wouldn't be letting Google decide the development roadmap. (The $25 fee doesn't count - the government has no problem charging multiples of that for anyone who drives a car or wants an ID card.)
As for Apple, they still have their antitrust lawsuit ongoing. Apple v Epic was only the first fire.
It just keeps getting worse. I think this is going to single-handedly destroy the OSS ecosystem that Android enjoys. It is incredibly frustrating watching this play out without having an alternative to migrate to.
It's extending beyond mobile too, which is terrifying.
Anonymity is under attack in general
Anonymity isn't under attack, we've been giving it away since MySpace and Facebook. Why forcibly take what you're willingly given?
Because it’s one thing to publicly show what you want and another to be forced to show everything that you have because you’re not a terrorist, are you? Have you though if children?
It would be righteous for it to destroy all of Android, not just its ecosystem.
The obvious alternative is Linux phones. Granted, the tech sets us back by maybe two decades, but at least we're almost at the stage where we can rapidfire develop our own apps or open source apps using LLM assistance.
Linux phones need a lot of love in both the hardware and shell departments to be practical for replacing mainstream smartphones.
> The obvious alternative is Linux phones.
Kindly disagree. Linux phones are very far behind.
The obvious alternative is an alternative OS based on AOSP. Like GrapheneOS.
I switched to Ubuntu Touch and I see nothing wrong with it, very pleased actually. What's your experience?
I'd love to use GrapheneOS but I have to stand firm on not giving Google any money (at least directly). I really wish I could use GrapheneOS on non-Google hardware.
Graphene is planning to make their own phone though, so that may work for you. I don't use Google software at all, not even their search engine or email, but I find that buying Google hardware is acceptable since the bootloader is unlocked.
How many Linux phones work well even as phones?
The survival of GrapheneOS is far from guaranteed for multiple reasons, but sure, it's nice while it lasts and stays updated with patches. I think Graphene might benefit from having additional hardware interoperability, and additional security layers that defend it even in the face of delayed patches from upstream.
Then the Linux phones will come under regulatory pressure to reveal this information and shut down freedoms.
Who would they pressure? And even if they were successful in pressuring them, people would just remove it or fork.
The chipmakers. In my dystopia, there are military permanently stationed at all of them, making sure that nothing gets out of there that can run unauthorized OSes or LLMs. Innovation Force.
Linux is far, far harder to regulate.
Android never had the FLOSS ethos of Linux or the GNU project at large.
> I think this is going to single-handedly destroy the OSS ecosystem that Android enjoys.
This was always the plan. Co-opt FLOSS with services running on FLOSS platforms that are not, themselves, FLOSS. Make it insanely unattractive to run actual FLOSS services on the otherwise FLOSS platform. At that point, it might as well be what Apple does.
There's a reason why rms was insistent upon GPL, but he never did have a real answer to that sort of corporate behavior.
Yes, so much for portability, the portability ship now is in the hand of two corporates, that do not care about what a user wants. The convenience, it offers, depends on the profitability of these corporates.
Well, I do not want to just in to one walled garden to another, so, I think, this is the end of portable devices for me. That is the stick, that Google and Apple both using to keep us in their hands, so, I'm going to do my best to say: No thank you, and F*ck off.
I might not ever buy a flagship or high-end smartphone anymore, but get a smaller laptop, and keep an old or cheap Android handy, which will have very little personal data in it. I can easily tether the Laptop with my mobile and do most of the things that are needed.
Yes, for bank applications, and some other applications, that requires app, I will keep the cheap Android handy. But, it not a personal device anymore, the thing that I loved about Android, it's just there, because it has to.
And I am done with a mobile device till a true Linux based mobile become available.
A key question here is if installation of Google Apps can fail verification if the device is offline, or if they have some magic local public key chain of pre-authed all OK keys.
DEVELOPER_VERIFICATION_FAILED_REASON_DEVELOPER_BLOCKED is very clearly the purpose of the whole thing. Presumably this one can be triggered on an already installed app - a key question being how that triggering occurs. i.e. will the Play Store act to push out details of developers that are now blocked so devices can act on it?
> Presumably this one can be triggered on an already installed app - a key question being how that triggering occurs. i.e. will the Play Store act to push out details of developers that are now blocked so devices can act on it?
Your "presumably" is doing a _lot_ of work; these strings are from the PackageInstaller, and go along with all of the other reasons you can't install an APK.
Historically, apps that were pulled from the Play Store and developer accounts revoked due to malware do _not_ affect apps on the end-user device, and there's no current sign of this changing with this specific project. Google have generally achieved this goal using Play Protect, the separate app/service which _can_ download revocation lists and signal end-users to delete malicious apps, and there's no indication this will change.
Android has a bunch of special signing keys (vendor, Google, that kind of thing) that get special treatment. I assume the same will apply here.
I don't have much of a problem with developers getting blocked, blocking malware shops is the entire point.
Installations failing because of a network problem is different, though. The Android ecosystem can trivially leverage the existing app certificates + occasionally updated CRLs to verify app developers. Android needing to call to the net before installing an APK seems over the top.
> I don't have much of a problem with developers getting blocked...
for building an alternative YouTube frontend. Or a torrenting app. Or due to sanctions / trade wars. (If you think these can't happen to you personally, imagine a Mega-Trump who's even Trumpier than Trump getting elected US president.)
What's malware to Google isn't necessarily malware to the user.
It will work the same way Play Protect does for blocking installation of malware. I don't think it will trigger on already installed apps, as I think package verifies require an actual update to the apk before they will trigger.
I just don't get it. It's not their device to decide what code can run on it. They can gatekeep at their store, because it's their store.
> It's not their device to decide what code can run on it.
They apparently feel very differently.
We got rid of the license on the OS; but they found other ways to put a license on the phone.
Clippy would never take away things you own. https://youtu.be/2_Dtmpe9qaQ
But it is their device. That's why the legalese at the beginning makes such a big deal of explaining that it's licensed not sold.
My daughter wants me to read the Ada & Zangemann book as a bed time lecture [1]. I don't know if she feels how relevant this topic has become.
[1] https://fsfe.org/activities/ada-zangemann/index.en.html
I was unaware of this book. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!
As long as any old apk can be installed over ADB, f-droid just needs to release a desktop app, and I'm gtg. Yeah, it's a little inconvenient, and hopefully just a stopgap until Linux phones are viable, but still better than Apple.
This is so rubbish.
I used to be an Android dev, and occasionally dabble.
I use Android as I can put things on it.
If its going to be closed, I may as well get an iPhone, or stick with open and get a Linux phone next.
This is great… for web apps.
I really hope this will be the final straw to break the camel’s back and people will see that native platforms bring nothing but lock in and misery (I’m an Android native developer, don’t bother telling me about “native experience”).
At this point, the only reason I have an Android phone is GrapheneOS. Fortunately it is not impacted by this. The day Google manages to make GrapheneOS unusable, I'm off to the iPhone.
Wouldn't be possible to just install an alternative Android build that has this removed?
What happens to hobby android app development when this comes into effect?
You can't even test stuff you made on your own hardware without getting verified.
Honestly, for people who value privacy and security: What exactly is the plan?
It seems like we're going from a reasonably acceptable option (GrapheneOS), to nothing.
Avoid using your phone, don't install apps, don't rely on it for anything, and stick it in a drawer most of the time. Phones have ALWAYS been a bad bet for privacy, and we've been losing this cat and mouse game for years. I agree that what's happening lately seems like a real watershed moment, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time.
Maybe I missed it, but assuming GrapheneOS doesn't adhere to this verification, or provides some OS-level way to disable it, what makes Graphene worse after this change?
GrapheneOS is only allowed to live because google lets it. This signals a wider ecosystem change that tells us that GrapheneOS is going to stop being usable when this generation of hardware dies. This generation or maybe the one after it.
But why start from scratch with a “Linux phone” when we can continue on the basis of GrapheneOS. The source is there and it works.
Apps that require Google Play Service or some form of attestation will not run on a Linux phone either.
What do you mean with "Google lets it"? GrapheneOS is based on AOSP.
GrapheneOS only runs on the Google Pixels, and Google may decide to render future Pixels unusable for GrapheneOS (e.g. by preventing to unlock/relock the bootloader).
But another Android manufacturer could get to the point where GrapheneOS endorses them. It feels like it shouldn't be that hard for an Android manufacturer, and they would immediately get quite some attention. Maybe not mainstream attention, but largely profitable, I think.
GrapheneOS exists only because the Pixel's bootloader can be unlocked. Google could remove that option anytime, making it impossible to install GrapheneOS.
Graphene is in talks with an OEM to make compatible devices. AOSP is free software, the only issue here is finding devices where it can be installed.
If ever there was a time for Linux phones to gain renewed development interest, it's now.
There's a part of me that wishes Firefox OS remained viable and overcame its problems where it could've become a viable alternative. I'm hopeful for the future of Linux phones, but I've yet to see a product that looks like it's reliable and works well..
I hope Google continues to send money to Firefox or they will die.
I'll add to this that libadwaita is really good, and manages to scale applications between desktop and mobile extremely well. Far better than any other mobile-desktop convergence I've seen before. Flatpak also offers a very good method for distributing apps in an easy and largely decentralized way.
Year of the Linux phones?
its a great idea but i think the work to make something practical is extremely high
The problem extends far deeper than just FOSS for mobile and IoT. There isn't competitive OSHW. The entire pipeline for silicon hardware development (PCB dev is relatively easy) is virtually locked away behind gates that require identity and/or address verification, node-locked trial licenses or sometimes big license fees paid to one or more big 3 EDA vendors. And that's even before getting anywhere need talking to a fab.
This.
If memory serves me right, in early days of Android, Google engineers were writing drivers on behalf of manufacturers because OEM drivers were too buggy.
Think about the amount of work and the kind of talent this requires.
If you are starting from scratch today as a no-name company, I doubt any hardware manufacturers even want to talk to you.
This is orthogonal to GrapheneOS; GrapheneOS's utility is being eroded by Device Attestation, but this change is irrelevant as GrapheneOS will already fail strict attestation.
Buy a Linux phone or contribute to development of the Linux phone ecosystem, and accept that while it may lag behind in features, it makes up for that in freedom and privacy. Potentially keep a cheap Apple/Android around for stuff like banking software that only works on them.
It seems to me that people are overreacting a little.
There's only speculation that GtapheneOS will stop existing.
They're working with a manufacturer to get first-class support for a new phone, which will be hard for Google to simply kill off.
Short and medium term GrapheneOS will continue and long-term I'm also hopeful.
It's not like Android and iOS are the only options exactly.
So I never spend much on phones, but I just got a Fairphone 4 running E/OS , which is .... like running android, except it blocks tracking by default, and you're in control. Some fairphones come with e/os pre-installed, but installing it isn't even all too fiddly, you can do it direct from chrome(ium).
And you can take it apart with your fingers and a screwdriver!
There's hope yet!
They _are_ the only options if you want banking to work reliably, which is essential for me at least due to 3DS requiring mobile app verification for transactions. I have to run stock android for pretty much this reason only. Everything else I could manage with, but not being locked out of certain banks.
Oh dear! That's like Microsoft all over again!
I've been in IT long enough to recognize this pattern. Every "convenient" lock-in becomes an expensive problem later - something you're definitely experiencing now!
My advice: don't get locked in in the first place yesterday. Or second best, start exploring ways out today. Push back on your bank - odds are they simply haven't had enough complaints yet. Demand alternate authentication methods. Fall back to web banking or even paper banking. Shop around - banks are IT companies like any other these days, and there are definitely banks with better terms.
Fortunately I'm in the Netherlands where web banking still works fine, so that's what I'm doing. Where are you located?
For a lot of us who have to use payment apps, banking apps, government apps, these two are pretty much the only options. :/
I bought a cheap burner phone for the banking and government apps. It's connected to a Google account with fake details and stays in a drawer by my desk.
This 100%. If it comes that that in the U.S. and there is no other practical alternative, I will buy the cheapest Android phone I can find to run those locked down apps on it when needed, and leave it powered off the rest of the time. All my personal business will continue to be done on my Graphene device, that's non-negotiable.
That sounds terrible! What country are you in? (And what happens to seniors, or people who can't afford a phone, for instance? )
Google, your platform currently does not inspire any privacy. It has no ecosystem going for it (workarounds do not count, I want Apple levels everything-works-together-100%-out-of-the-box). Your Watch and other products have repeatedly been called lukewarm, and the Fitbit integration with Google integration was the last straw that pushed me off your watch platform.
If you want me to buy an iOS clone with no competitive edges, I would rather stick with the real deal. At least Apple has been consistent with their views about what iOS is since day 1.
I recently put my finger on what has been changing lately, especially after the assassination:
We used to say, that online speech, is not the same as in-person speech.
Online, you can yell horrible things, imply that somebody should "do something" about another person, but police showing up at your door is a tyranny, even if those same things on a street corner would've had you on involuntary commitment. Online, a developer might build an app that pulls off phishing scams, but they have the complete right to be anonymous. Meanwhile, the person cutting your hair, preparing your food, or even selling you flowers needs registration, if only for taxes. In person was a "real" threat, while online was just "venting," "trolling."
That's dying. Online is now the real world. With real world consequences.
>Online is now the real world.
Without most of the benefits of the real world, mind you.
I don't know what you mean. I don't know in what world you could say half the things that were on BlueSky, post-assassination, without riot police being called and people getting arrested, assuming they were physically present and saying the same things.
The US? We have the first amendment here and you can actively and energetically endorse violence. You can't cross over into coordinating violence, which is the "eminent lawless action" part. But you can certainly suggest it, or demand it. Celebrating it is sometimes almost mandatory.
Can't understand how that relates to this other than as an awkward, contrived excuse for bad faith pearl clutching about checks notes Bluesky.
Are you reading your own words? You're saying online is now offline because of consequences meanwhile the Bluesky posters you're complaining about are not actually being arrested by riot police.
I think they're saying that they would very much like that to happen.
That has always been the case. I've always posted under my real name as a constant reminder.