Google’s developer verification will only run on mainstream Android with play services. It’s not supposed won’t be running in standard AOSP so the easiest solution would be to switch to a custom ROM like GrapheneOS.
I don’t have that choice in Denmark due to NemID.
While true, the pool of unlockable devices are dwindling fast.
True…. I heard GrapheneOS is having trouble porting to the Pixel 10
Also, aren’t some critical apps like banking apps starting to ban unlocked / non-stock systems? Heard someone complaining about this a while ago.
Yes, banking apps, streaming apps, even some shopping apps. This has been a problem for a long time. Sometimes its for “security” reasons and sometimes its simply because the app uses Play Service APIs. Another issue on de-googled systems is push notifications, though that is often fixed through alternates like Unified Push
Contact your representative. And here’s F-droid’s article about it (including how to find your representative at the end of the article): https://f-droid.org/en/2025/09/29/google-developer-registration-decree.html
we need linux phones ASAP
We had a few good Linux phones back in the day but Nokia / Microsoft killed them trying to compete with iPhone OS and Android: Maemo / Meego were great but did not get a proper chance.
Jolla continued the legacy and Sailfish OS is still something worth checking out if you can find suitable hardware, or idk how complex it is to port it.
Does anyone know if existing linux phones can run 2FA apps such as Duo or Google authenticator?
Why do you need the google Authenticator? Proton has it too. Which (from searching) looks like it’s compatible for the Ubuntu systems. But that’s just from the search. I ‘m personally just using it with a android right now. I am currently eyeing up the fairphone Ubuntu as my next phone
Why do you need the google Authenticator?
Systems at work use google authenticator for 2FA. Prior jobs have used Duo.
Google Authenticator is merely a generic TOTP token storage app. The person you’re replying to was pointing out that Google Authenticator, specifically, isn’t necessary. There are alternatives, and unless you’re using a company-owned device that restricts the apps you can use there is no way for work to dictate which app you use for TOTP tokens.
Duo, Okta Verify, and other 2FA apps that use push notifications and such, are a different beast altogether.
European devs: Our laws will protect us!
Meanwhile, our laws:
Article 30
Traceability of traders
- Providers of online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders shall ensure that traders can only use those online platforms to promote messages on or to offer products or services to consumers located in the Union if, prior to the use of their services for those purposes, they have obtained the following information, where applicable to the trader:
(a) the name, address, telephone number and email address of the trader;
(b) a copy of the identification document of the trader or any other electronic identification as defined by Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (40);
Let’s hope that the rest of the world, specifically Europe smash this ridiculous proposal apart for what it is. Europe has already sorted out USB-C etc. Its not perfect and they don’t get everything right, but certainly big enough to make stuff right.
They’re too busy forcing chat control and age gates through our collective throats.
Yep. The E.U. has allowed itself to be dominated for too long by the US megacorps. It has the talent, ideas, and manufacturing to tell US firms to bugger off … and the sooner, the better for us all.
Unless you want hillbilly outrage slop destabilising your continent, you better get control away from American tech companies.
I’m starting to think these for-profit companies only care about making money.
gulp You might be right
What pisses me off it that they say they do this for security. It changes absolutely anything.
They really think that malware developers will say “oh no! I need to submit a picture of an id card to sign my malware! It’s literally impossible to submit a jpg of a stolen id card, I’m ruined and out of a job!”
What does it change? Waste 20 minutes of some malware developer while they register under a stolen id? They already have a system that scans for known malware and automatically remove it.
Both things can be true. It definitely is better for security. It’s pretty much indisputably better for security.
But you know what would be even better for security? Not allowing any third-party code at all (i.e., no apps).
Obviously that’s too shitty and everyone would move off of that platform. There’s a balance that must be struck between user freedom and the general security of a worldwide network of sensitive devices.
Users should be allowed to do insecure things with their devices as long as they are (1) informed of the risks, (2) prevented from doing those things by accident if they are not informed, and (3) as long as their actions do not threaten the rest of the network.
Side-loading is perfectly reasonable under those conditions.
It’s always security when someone wants to take our freedom away. Always security…
Not always. It can also be about the children.
That’s also security.
Not really, it’s more about children not being exposed to things usually. Hence starting with age requirements for porn and they move forward to other things.
“Protecting the children from harmful content and predators”, “protecting people from terrorists and criminals”, “protecting users from hackers” are all forms of security, and are all used as arguments to erode freedoms.
It all boils down to: just give up this bit of freedom so we can keep everyone safe.
About keeping the children safe
Of course they know that. It’s about power and money. After all, they already have a security program that filters out malware. If we believe their stated reasoning (which we don’t), they’re tacitly admitting that their current security program is a complete failure, and also that they will not try to fix it.
The justification is simple, I don’t see the confusion, they want absolute power and for all alternatives to wither and die ? What is there not to understand ?
I am perfectly ok with android apps being required to be signed by not just a certificate (they always were just it could be self signed and just needed to match to upgrade without removing data) but a list of trusted entities.
As long as:
- I can install my own key on my phone (I’d I am trusted)
- major distributors like fdroid and have a key installed without friction (like web CAs)
- Google let’s me mark their key as untrusted (I probably won’t but I should be able to refuse things they trust (at install time, not disabling preloaded apps like settings)
Without this it feels too much extending the monopoly despite being forced to allow 3rd party stores.
It seems to me that part of the problem is overreliance on phones as computing devices. A lot of things, like banking, are best done on an actual computer. We have become too dependent on phones.
Maybe we have this view because when we refer to computers we see a more open ecosystem that’s not found in the mobile phone era. I want that same liberty with my phone. When the word “sideloading” has disappeared, I think then we have known something has changed.
no it’s not. takes me 2 seconds to log in into my banking up in my phone. anything basic will take a few taps to do (eg transfer money).
Your phone has likely much better security for your banking apps than your computer, unless you run really niche setup like QubesOS.
We as a society should be rethinking the term “security”, if it’s come to mean submitting to being jerked around however best suits some private company’s interests instead of our own. If there’s a central platform for its security benefit it should be democratically controlled instead of controlled by what are effectively feudal lords, or perhaps even an occupying force
The security I am talking about has nothing to do with being locked down. Linux could easily implement the same, but it probably never will, because it requires a bit of central management and vision. And Linux really struggles with that.
You’re responding downthread of QubesOS being mentioned
Sure it’s hard to get that kind of security onto mainstream distros. But it exists.
Yeah, I was the one mentioning QubesOS. Since I tried it and didn’t last a week because of how bad the user experience was. I am not a CIA spy, I am looking for a balance of security and usability and android is amazing at that. Sure, some things could be more secure. Sure, I can’t do some things because GrapheneOS can’t be rooted. But the balance is excellent. At least for me.
You say “security” I say “a bug that won’t let me log in”. Which is it?
I’m not sure how it works the way where you live but where I live, the way the banking apps are implemented completely violate MFA. They rely on SMS verification which is absurd since if you’re phone is already compromised, no doubt your SMSes are too. There’s no true multi-device authentication in place and this has led to a huge number of victims being scammed after their devices get compromised by a phishing attack.
The desktop and phone are both insecure, proper security should not have all your eggs in one basket.
Well, yes. But then again, I would trust my GrapheneOS phone not getting compromised over 3 linux devices. MFA is not some ultimate solutions and it is a pain to use.
I mean sure, but that’s not the case for the majority of the user base of these banking apps. Is it the most secure? No but it’s way better than it is right now.
So what is the case for most users? Are normal android phones getting compromised (in a way true 2FA would help) often enough it is an issue? I honestly haven’t seen any statistic regarding this and anecdotally I don’t know anyone whose internet banking was compromised. Whether on phone or desktop.
Yeah, SIM swaps are a concern too.
The phone is not insecure because of all eggs on basket.
Which is the point. Why do we need this security when the most virus riden PC can access my banking website.
That’s a good point, time to ban banking websites and only allow people with locked-down phones to bank.
Yeah but it’s “we” as in everyone not “we” as in “Lemmy commenters”.
So the network effect will keep the average person on a locked-down phone that can’t run anything anti-regime
Yep I absolutely refuse to put any banking apps on my phone. The only thing that has access to my bank is me physically going there or logging into their website via my own computer. Fuck any app that asks for access to my bank account including autopay services thorugh third parties.
The only third party serive I use for payments is paypal and that only goes to my credit card.
Yeah guess what happens when access starts to be app-only?
“Year of the Linux Phone” has a nice ring to it.
Not for me, no. I love the sandboxing and permissions of android (GrapheneOS). Honestly, desktop OSs should learn from it. Also, android is a lot easier to use, especially on small form factor devices.
Idk about GrapheneOS in particular but I find the sandboxing solutions for GNU/Linux like bubblewrap to be much more granular than standard Android.
“give us access to manage phone calls or we won’t you me answer internet calls (which have nothing to do with actual SIM calls)”, “give us access to all your files or we wont let you share that file via the share function (which doesn’t need fs access to work)”.
On GNU/Linux I can only give a program exactly the resources it needs, I can disallow dbus, I can block it from accessing potentially troublesome things like /dev/dri, can overlay filesystems and pretend that’s my real home dir. Or can just mount the whole / to some other system.
I am not saying android is perfect, but too granular is also bad. I have better things to do then tweaking SELinux policies.
Open source community keeps trusting Google and they keep using the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
What should anyone have done different? Not built for one of the largest platforms with the most users?
Android is so big because the community let them embrace it. Since the beginning the community should have worked in a true open solution. Now it’s really late to try to make a Linux phone
Luddite. I’ve let AI manage my finances and mortgage for about a month now. Hold on, there’s a knock at the door, some dudes with a big van or something
Linux would suck on a phone. Sorry it is barely usable on a laptop. We get worse battery life hardware less supported. Sure we put up with it but most people just want stuff to work.
Right now the only decently speced phone with mainline Linux support is the Oneplus 6, and the only one I can find is being sold for $2000
There’s the FairPhone 6, running e/OS, Which is a deGoogled port of android, running microG
https://murena.com/america/shop/smartphones/brand-new/murena-fairphone-6/
If f-droid doesn’t expect to survive I think the whole stack /e/OS relies on might eventually collapse (microg, lineage, …).
Might be - on the other hand, /e/ already supports f-droid out of the box, so there may be a possibility just google play will be going away…
I dunno how viable it is, but linux phones with waydroid is a thing
Also, I’d imagine that a small pocket of custom ROM amd root folks will still exist
Come hell or high water, i will retain control of my phone
Damn, I was hoping my Oneplus 6T was worth a couple grand. Nope. Someone has one on Swappa unlocked and in mint condition for $180. A Oneplus 6 is listed on Ebay for $130.
Is it in stock though?
It is, but why does that matter?
I think that’s the one I have, but please explain what mainline Linux kernel means? Would it be about installing bare Linux instead of Android?
It means you can use the regular Linux kernel instead of fucking around with a custom kernel (like Asahi) or with some sort of Android layer (like Halium). So running whatever distro you want shouldn’t be too difficult.
Can’t you install graphene on Pixel 6 and later?
Technically illegal where I live.
In Brazil you can’t sell a device with a given feature and then remove said feature in a software update. Even Apple, known for never allowing downgrades, was forced to downgrade and pay a fine to a customer after his iPad 3 updated to iOS 7 and lost an iOS 6 feature.
In other words… every single Android device sold until today in Brazil allows sideloading. Even if a single customer uses a sideloaded app, removing the ability to sideload freely would be illegal, and because the original feature didn’t require a developer signature it can’t be enforced now.
The issue is, as always, if this went to court somebody would have to manage to explain to a tech illiterate judge what a “developer signature” is, how this relates to “sideloading” and so on.
Also, let’s stop calling it “sideloading”. Sideloading has a bad vibe. We just want to INSTALL software on our own devices.
technically you will still be able to install apps from outside the play store, but the developer will need to verify their identity with google.
Of course, most developers will refuse to do so (myself included), and so most apps will not be able to be installed. From a technical perspective, installing apps from other sources will still be allowed. So i can see judges ruling that this is not a feature removal.
You and I both know this is google killing non play store apps, but I don’t think the tech illiterate judges will see it that way.
Technically you can still install apps unsigned through ADB.
Considering it’s easier than ever to start up something like Shizuku, it could be used to grant f-droid access to install apps bypassing the requirement.
Obviously not a good solution by any means.
but the developer will need to verify their identity with google.
If I purchase a device today, it’s got the ability to install apps that are not verified. This is a feature. If now it’s restricted, it violates our code.
thank god for brazil
The problem might be that Google will argue this isn’t a downgrade at all, but an upgrade (for “security” reasons). I don’t want to be a pessimist, but the tech illiterate judges could eat that up.
… Brazil is one of the first countries this’ll go into effect and I also remember something about how that first batch of countries was chosen because their governmemts support this change.
because their governmemts support this change.
I can see how Google’s PR team might use this argument, but it’s certainly illegal in Brazil so our government most definitely isn’t supporting this decision. Also, it needs to be way more specific than “government” - who exactly is endorsing this? Procon? Anatel? Polícia Federal?
Either way, the actual reason for targeting Brazil as one of the first is because we do love our piracy, which naturally translates into sideloading being frequent.
brazil and piracy are a match made in heaven, I remember when I was 8 and my mom went with me to a openstreet market to buy xbox360 games, all were pirate copies selling in open sky to anyone to buy, copyright be dammed, and of course can’t forget the famous “gato” to watch all tv channels for free with a android box that definetly does not has a backdoor in it
Best of luck to Brazil then. Hopefully you get them to change course.
Brazil has actually been really good about holding the mega corps to account recently. I’m very hopeful for them.
Starting next year, Android will require all apps to be registered by verified developers in order to be installed by users on certified Android devices.
Are they actually proposing to make any previously sold devices “certified” through a software update, though? Your points are right on if this edict applied to all devices.
A “certified Android device” is a device running Google Play Services, Play Protect, Google’s WideVine DRM scheme and a few other requirements. If you purchase a device from a known manufacturer, like Samsung, you’re falling into this category.
Isn’t this illegal in Europe? Was that the whole point of forcing apple to allow alternative app stores?
If you have a Mac, have you ever tried installing an app and have it refuse because it’s not signed by Apple, and then you had to go into settings and click “allow anyway?”
This is that, except without the allow anyway feature, like iOS. It doesn’t matter if it comes from the play store or elsewhere, as this story originally had us believe.
No, Google is following Apple’s exmaple.
I can’t believe how useless the EU regulations are.
