←back to thread

205 points ColinWright | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.691s | source
1. chartered_stack ◴[] No.45082668[source]
There are really two separate issues here:

A) It should be harder for non-technical users to accidentally install apps designed to harm them.

B) It should also be possible for anyone to run whatever code they want on hardware they own.

Both can be true, and platforms should support both. Ultimately, it is up to the platform to decide what they want to allow and how they protect their users.

I get why Android is tightening controls: plenty of people install shady APKs they get from random websites or Telegram/WhatsApp groups and get burned. But forcing developers to register with Google isn’t the answer. If I want to run a hobby project on my own phone, I for sure shouldn't have to jump through bureaucratic hoops.

The thing is that Google already has the mechanism to protect users: the Play Store. The real problem is that its review process is weak and flooded with low-quality and malicious apps. Fixing that would do far more good than punishing independent developers. They also don't want to open up anti-trust behavior by actually prioritizing the Play Store and saying that you shouldn't trust an app from a random Chinese App Store.

If Google wants to make Android safer, step one should be cleaning up the Play Store. Step two is making that the obvious, prioritized channel. Only after that should they even think about playing Big Brother.

replies(1): >>45085647 #
2. Terretta ◴[] No.45085647[source]
Just as in the linked article, these two statements make it pretty clear:

> A) It should be harder for non-technical users to accidentally install apps designed to harm them.

> B) It should also be possible for anyone to run whatever code they want on hardware they own

Require something in the neighborhood of:

C) It should be possible to prevent people who can run whatever they want from wanting* to intentionally or accidentally install apps designed to harm them; or, where these harms are either not harmful or are reversible.

If you consider things that help with (C), and apply this principle — “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." — then a lot of iOS/iPadOS developer and app ecosystem can be understood as positive intentionality around flavors of C.

* By being scammed, persuaded, misled, confused, coerced, etc.