News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install... by itake on Sunday August 31, 2025 @12:01PM (#45084181)
How are they responsible?
Re:Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install... by kleiba on Sunday August 31, 2025 @12:07PM (#45084232)
I cannot speak for the grandparent, so here's my best guess what was meant: namely the introduction of a centally managed "app store" as the central/only way to install new software on your device, thereby taking control away from users?!

Was the iPhone the first device to come with that concept?

Re:Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install... by blibble on Sunday August 31, 2025 @12:12PM (#45084274)
carriers had similar stores for j2me apps

on the original iphone the only "apps" you could have were websites, as apple hated the carrier approach

Re:Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install... by justsid on Sunday August 31, 2025 @12:20PM (#45084356)
The “sweet solution” has long been debunked by the people who worked on the early iPhone OS software. The iPhone was always supposed to have apps, it just wasn’t ready yet. Heck, half the OS wasn’t ready either at launch or the MacWorld presentation.
Re:Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install... by CharlesW on Sunday August 31, 2025 @12:31PM (#45084460)
> Was the iPhone the first device to come with that concept?

Far from it.

Before Apple, carriers and handset makers 100% controlled what you could install. "App stores" like Verizon's Get It Now, BREW, and Nokia’s operator portals existed, but they were fragmented, clunky, often exploitative, and comparatively laughable in scope and scale.

Apple did what seemed impossible at the time, which was to persuade/cajole/force carriers and handset makers to give up their roles as gatekeepers. They created a single global marketplace with mostly-predictable rules and simple discovery, which finally allowed indie developers to reach users directly just as easily as global behemoths.

Re:Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install... by GeekyBear on Sunday August 31, 2025 @01:56PM (#45085302)
Remember when Verizon was sued for forcing device makers to disable Bluetooth file transfers if they wanted their device to be allowed to connect to Verizon's network?

Verizon wanted you to have to pay a fee every time you used their software to transfer an image from your phone to your computer, or vice versa.

Re:Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install... by guyomes on Sunday August 31, 2025 @12:37PM (#45084521)
On video game consoles, the concept of taking control away from users seems common. There was some Linux kit for the Playstation 2 for example [1]. On more recent console, the process is not facilitated, to say the least [2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(video_games)

Re:Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install... by gdulli on Sunday August 31, 2025 @01:50PM (#45085230)
Even less freedom of sideloading. They normalized it.
Re:Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install... by MetaWhirledPeas on Sunday August 31, 2025 @02:05PM (#45085379)
Not only did Apple popularize app stores, they made it impossible to get software on their devices any other way, from day one. Google was the relatively "open" option. But that was the old Google. This is the new Google, apparently.

I'm actually pro-app store as long as it's helping apps to be malware-free. But I'm 100% against shutting out side-loading. Side-loading was never common let alone a common vector for malware, at least not that I've ever heard. But what it is, apparently (or we would not see these Google shenanigans), is a long-term threat to Google's own app store.

Some idiot executive decided this.

Re:Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install... by rstat1 on Sunday August 31, 2025 @02:48PM (#45085844)
>>I'm actually pro-app store as long as it's helping apps to be malware-free

Except that it isn't. Epic v Apple proved this on the Apple side.

The fact that (according to Google) only 50% of Android malware comes from sideloading should also make you question where the other 50% is coming from. (Hint: a lot of it is from the Play Store)

Re:Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install... by Aloisius on Sunday August 31, 2025 @03:42PM (#45086384)
50%? Source?

The only similar claim I can find is they said is you're 50x more likely to encounter malware from internet-sideloaded sources than from the Play Store, but that's rather different.

Re:Google: 'Your $1000 phone needs our permission to install... by rstat1 on Monday September 01, 2025 @03:45PM (#45095968)
Ok I absolutely misread that as 50%...either way, a not-insignificant portion of Android malware still comes from the Play Store, which was the point I was trying to make.