Well that was the original android phone idea. Get a hackable open device that you can write apps for your self. Even attach third party hardware to it for extra functionality with lots of customisation. But this idea has mutated quite a bit.
Even by 2015 the noise in Google was “the Chrome OS model is better” with reference to them centrally controlling everything.
Andy Rubin was no saint, on so many levels, but when he was removed from Android leadership and the Chrome culture effectively took over this was always how it was going to go.
I fully agree with it. But I think Google also understands that the platform is unatractive for businesses. In my case I just don't do Android app because I know it is easy to just take and hack. It is not the case on iPhone. And my app is one time payment so the ability to just copy out the APK leaves me not doing an app at all...
The crypographic flow that allows payments to work is straight up pub/priv key encryption with one time use tokens. It's not something you can hack. As soon you see the token it's already been used and thrown away. So whatever nonsense about decompiling literally doesn't matter.
He said his app is a one time payment. Presumably there isn’t a backend and he relies on App Store purchases. I know, it’s shocking an app could just be an actual application rather than a web view.
So your professional opinion is that the attack surface of mobile banking apps is limited to tokenized payments? Honestly, I'd be appalled if tokens were routed through my banking app. There is no reason the local client needs that data.
The payment doesn't happen on the device. It happens at the VISA/Mastercard/AMEX level. So "the app" should be doing the validation upstream on the server side and simply reporting yes/no to the app. If you hack the yes/no okay but most payments are for physical things IRL so the payment gateway that is not on your phone is gonna be like ??? - in other words it's on the app not to trust a raw true/false signal and instead rely on server side checks. This is all irrelevant. I make regular massive purchases on my linux box where I can read the memory. It doesn't change anything.
There is no shortage of general-purpose computing hardware in the EU. If you need some general-purpose compute to make a car, an oven, or a phone, you can get it. That consumers mostly buy special-purpose devices that don't always allow them to make full use of the possibilities of the hardware is hardly a sovereignity challenge.
The EU has enough tech talent to do it, but the political and managerial class lack both the strategic ability or the willingness to adequately reward the effort it would take, almost certainly preferring to, again, outsource the concern, and then be shocked Pikachu later.
Anyone doubting this should see how BMW think about their in car software. And that is for a supposedly premium product.
There's GrapheneOS. It's Canadian, not European. I'm not sure where LineageOS is from.
BMW isn't the EU government. Like I said, someone has to actually do it. BMW Actually Did It in a really user hostile way, and that's the best we have. Why is nobody Actually Doing It but good? Or why aren't we buying MNT products?
BMW behaviour is perfectly representative of the EU mentality.
As is your comment. It is basically “someone else should do this properly and I will take the benefits” but not actually willing to put up the hard bit themselves.
The root problem here is the EU is culturally broken, and until some grand disaster will simply decline ever further with everyone involved wondering why no one else is doing anything about it.
If the govvies (any govvies; there is nothing specific to EU here) drive that process of forking a large, powerful, universally used system you will end up with more surveillance, not less.
Because kids, because pornography, because terrorism, whatever. This is too powerful an option for control freaks to resist.
They can make the product according to rules that are imposed on them. One rule: allow privacy. Unless the privacy is not in the field of interest of both the producer and the EU
While the EU and its member countries can't (or at least morally shouldn't) force people to make the product, if it was a priority they could incentivise it with funding, tax breaks, etc.
yeah but processors phone home anyway at a level beneath the OS and there’s no european chip development worth mentioning. so i’m not sure real sovereignty is ever going to be possible. crazy considering ASML being in europe.
GrapheneOS has minimal, private [1] system apps so you don't have to debloat anything yourself. Manual debloating is not a good solution at the user level.
Some system apps are being overhauled, so that's something to look forward to. Gallery will be [2] based on ReFra [3].
[1] Except phone and messaging but that's the cell network.
GrapheneOS recommends Signal/Molly or SimpleX instead.
GrapheneOS or other custom ROMs don't solve the actual problem that you can't just buy a smartphone and install any operating system like you can with an actual computer, despite technically being one.
Also, GrapheneOS supports device attestation (the non-google kind at least), which is still ridiculous as such systems have no benefit to people, only to technofeudalist corporations.
Device attestation is how you can use private keys you don't actually have access to. It has a lot of value to literally anyone who wants to store tokens or use one time authentication codes. Linux folks need to implement the full stack and offer an open alternative to payments, secrets, and tokens. In the age of LLMs there is no excuse. It is annoying as hell that I can't buy a System76 or Framework laptop with a fingerprint sensor but a Lenovo comes with one that works on Linux perfectly.
And Graphene OS is also anti-user by being tremendously rude about NOT providing root and using the same tired "suck-u-rity" crap Google and Apple also use.
If you're smart enough to buy a phone that supports GrapheneOS, AND install it, yeah you should have root.
And tools like XPrivacy and plugins allow control of subsystems like GPS spoofing and lying to apps.
GrapheneOS's goals are privacy which must start from a secure baseline. If you want to make it less secure yourself, you can, but it's not the goal of the project.
It's not anti-user if it doesn't add the features you want that would destroy the security of the OS.
It has many features that give the user more control. Like disabling emergency alerts, protecting your data from attackers, contact and storage scopes (lying to apps for more privacy while retaining functionality), sensors permission, network permission.
If you are technical and want root its very easy to patch a build of GrapheneOS to include whatever mechanism you want. You can even automate this to continue to receive updates.
I think the decision of GrapheneOS to maintain the attestation features and not providing user root is what gives it a fighting chance of being accepted as legitimate 3rd choice. See: Revolut and others adding GrapheneOS keys and trusting their attestation
Like or not, for most users, having root access is a liability, especially with more and more important things being held on phones . Someone downloading a photo editing app and then having a rootkit installed in the background that waits to empty their bank account is not a workable situation.
Seriously question; why is the answer to this not a phone that can just run GNU/Linux? Is it just the lack of application support? I mean, you’ll have blobs, but at least at the os level you’ll have options?
Desktop operating systems != phone operating systems. You need to have a lot of support for things like "sleep apps you're not using right now" or you'll burn through battery. Not to mention that we tend to expect a lot of functionality which only works when the OS enables it, e.g. the sort of app-to-app coordination enabled by Android's App Intents. You certainly could build something like that on top of DBus, but, well, you'd have to build it.
xdg already provides "portals" and "XDG Intents" that implement most of what android does. Flatpak implements most of the sandboxing you have on android. It doesn't have feature parity but IMO it doesn't need to. CGroups and systemd-user can prevent apps from running in the background.
I think it might be a good idea to pause updates on our Android devices, as horrible as it is for security just to prevent this from happening. My OEM has a lot of bloat (Facebook and other junk apps you can't uninstall, useless system services, etc) that mostly do nothing except provide some functionality I don't use along with analytics every minute so they are uninstalled.
"Disabling" an app does not do that much, the OS can re enable it with an update or prevent you from disabling it.
I doubt there is true full privacy on a phone anymore with a stock ROM.
Despite it's name it can also block IPs and specific apps from connecting to specific servers. I use it to block all manufacturer and OEM related apps that I cannot uninstall through adb or disable. Very handy for blocking constant Chinese phone telemetry pings, as well as additional network level blocklists for ads (Pi-hole like), completely locally so you can trust it unlike a shady VPN.
I checked out your link; it seems to be a mailing list for a hosts file for telemetry? Why is there no option to just see the file without giving in my email? Not the most private.
Every single reboot on my lower end Motorola phone, they have decided it fit to re-enable com.glance.lockscreenM every single boot and on every single update.
It's horrible. I don't think I can trust them to produce a Graphene phone at all, really, despite all of everyone's assurances.
At least you can disable it; on some phones (especially Chinese phones) you cannot do anything to the system services, they intercept all app requests, essentially what Google did but with their system. The only recommendation I can give you is to look into Hail (device-owner app that can "freeze" apps, a "lower level" form of disabling, see https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.aistra.hail/) which will mean even if the app gets reinstalled on system update, the device owner app will prevent it from running.
I think GrapheneOS might have issues in the future considering that Android will be getting more and more locked down. People say GrapheneOS is the better OS when it just is hardened Android; it is doomed purely because of the Android base.
Perhaps a Linux based edition of GrapheneOS would do well, even if it will not have a lot of app compatibility. There's only so much patching you have to do to Android before it just becomes more work than good.
This sucks. I use adb to uninstall all of the system apps like facebook, youtube, web browser, etc. to give myself a minimalist, distraction-free phone that still has niche apps, maps, and communication apps. Might have to look into the expensive light phones as an alternative now if this update hits my phone.
I had the exact same problem because I had a strong addiction to smartphone apps.
I looked into the Light Phone and The Mudita Kompakt, but I ended up buying a refurbished Pixel 8 and putting Graphene OS on it, then I installed only essential apps I need. I keep my old iPhone 12 in a drawer at home and use it for anytime I Need any apps that don't work on a custom ROM, which includes my bank app (plus, imo, it's safer not carry around a phone that has my baking data on it in case it gets lost or stolen).
The light phones are a really cool concept but the Light Phone 3 is quite expensive (more expensive than a new Pixel 10) and the Mudita Kompakt seems to have a huge amount of grievances from users on their forum, so that put me off.
Why would you uninstall them over disabling them? They make good point uninstalling is pointless, disabling achieves same purpose and it is safer. You can't use that system space anyway.
if you don't want some system app running just "uninstall" (disable) it with Shizuku + Canta on any non-rooted Android, my current phone is the first one in 15 years with Android which I didn't root since unlocking bootloader on XIaomi is pretty much impossible, but anyway I can achieve pretty much same results with Shizuku and additional apps like Canta, Hail, Shizuwall, etc.
Potential benefits:
as mentioned, Android 17 prohibits uninstalling system apps, but allows disabling
disabling apps is usually safer, and they could be re-enabled from Settings in some cases
many system apps run in the background after being uninstalled, but it's unknown whether they do when disabled.
Neutral:
some apps might get re-enabled unless they're uninstalled (or the opposite).
Potential harm:
that would make it more risky for those who prefer to uninstall instead to save storage
most of the already listed apps are primarily tested for uninstalling rather than disabling
disabling instead, decreases privacy by not hiding apps, keeping the device unique.
Extremely "Googly" responses there. Not a single mention of the strategy of Google to include, oh, payment, social gaming, ads ... effectively building it into the system and totally disregarding the reasoning that people might want to remove or replace Google Play Services for those reasons. Just act like all that doesn't exist.
Noose keeps tightening, the war on General Purpose Computing, the war against users owning devices intensifies. How utterly fallen.
We'll see what happens with the proposed ADB changes. Lots of no one asking for this, lots of people describing how badly their phone use will be greviously impacted, and seemingly very little discussion/engagement/justification. Maybe they'll fire the bullet anyways. https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/526109803
I said the same thing about waiting for 24hrs before being able to use adb to install apps. About 24hrs being not a big blocker and that it was good for security. It's all about boiling the frog slowly, 24hrs is the start and then they'll add more restrictions once users accept that. Ultimately goog would like to have the system as much locked down as apple or even more.
Maybe they're right, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
Perhaps the problem is our desire to have everything, no matter what the compromises are. Perhaps the problem is our inability to say, I'm going to go with product X even though it lacks Y because we actually own X. There is virtually no incentive for competition to pop up in such an environment since established companies have a lead of years, decades if you consider the size of the established companies, so consumers will follow their lead.
I don't mean to suggest that buying alternatives is a solution to the problem as a whole, but doing so may allow enough niche products to survive to give those of us who are interested in alternatives and alternative to choose from.
All that talk about sovereignty, and we are giving full control of our digital lives to 2 American companies.
Andy Rubin was no saint, on so many levels, but when he was removed from Android leadership and the Chrome culture effectively took over this was always how it was going to go.
No you don't, otherwise we wouldn't have banking apps on it.
It wasn't hard before LLMs and it's nearly trivial now.
Why would these corrupt bureacrats give up their full control over the lives of those who didn't elect them?
So maybe they prefer another solution to the sovereignty issue.
There's MNT in the EU.
The EU has enough tech talent to do it, but the political and managerial class lack both the strategic ability or the willingness to adequately reward the effort it would take, almost certainly preferring to, again, outsource the concern, and then be shocked Pikachu later.
Anyone doubting this should see how BMW think about their in car software. And that is for a supposedly premium product.
BMW isn't the EU government. Like I said, someone has to actually do it. BMW Actually Did It in a really user hostile way, and that's the best we have. Why is nobody Actually Doing It but good? Or why aren't we buying MNT products?
As is your comment. It is basically “someone else should do this properly and I will take the benefits” but not actually willing to put up the hard bit themselves.
The root problem here is the EU is culturally broken, and until some grand disaster will simply decline ever further with everyone involved wondering why no one else is doing anything about it.
Because kids, because pornography, because terrorism, whatever. This is too powerful an option for control freaks to resist.
And they need a plan to spend it.
Some system apps are being overhauled, so that's something to look forward to. Gallery will be [2] based on ReFra [3].
[1] Except phone and messaging but that's the cell network.
GrapheneOS recommends Signal/Molly or SimpleX instead.
[2] https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2083724696722301266#m
[3] https://github.com/IacobIonut01/ReFra
Also, GrapheneOS supports device attestation (the non-google kind at least), which is still ridiculous as such systems have no benefit to people, only to technofeudalist corporations.
GrapheneOS literally has an app that uses attestation and isn't for "technofeudalist corporations".
https://attestation.app/about
[1] https://frame.work/products/fingerprint-reader-kit?v=FRANTD0...
This is very useful on OEM ROMs with a bunch of scrapware, no one expects a custom ROM to have this issue.
If you're smart enough to buy a phone that supports GrapheneOS, AND install it, yeah you should have root.
And tools like XPrivacy and plugins allow control of subsystems like GPS spoofing and lying to apps.
It's not anti-user if it doesn't add the features you want that would destroy the security of the OS.
It has many features that give the user more control. Like disabling emergency alerts, protecting your data from attackers, contact and storage scopes (lying to apps for more privacy while retaining functionality), sensors permission, network permission.
I think the decision of GrapheneOS to maintain the attestation features and not providing user root is what gives it a fighting chance of being accepted as legitimate 3rd choice. See: Revolut and others adding GrapheneOS keys and trusting their attestation
Like or not, for most users, having root access is a liability, especially with more and more important things being held on phones . Someone downloading a photo editing app and then having a rootkit installed in the background that waits to empty their bank account is not a workable situation.
Can’t you run an android sandbox in Linux?
Docker phone?
I’m sure I’m missing something here, but what?
Not to mention that the options outside iOS and Android are slim and for the most part bad (or atleast simply even worse than those).
"Disabling" an app does not do that much, the OS can re enable it with an update or prevent you from disabling it.
I doubt there is true full privacy on a phone anymore with a stock ROM.
Despite it's name it can also block IPs and specific apps from connecting to specific servers. I use it to block all manufacturer and OEM related apps that I cannot uninstall through adb or disable. Very handy for blocking constant Chinese phone telemetry pings, as well as additional network level blocklists for ads (Pi-hole like), completely locally so you can trust it unlike a shady VPN.
I checked out your link; it seems to be a mailing list for a hosts file for telemetry? Why is there no option to just see the file without giving in my email? Not the most private.
It's horrible. I don't think I can trust them to produce a Graphene phone at all, really, despite all of everyone's assurances.
I think GrapheneOS might have issues in the future considering that Android will be getting more and more locked down. People say GrapheneOS is the better OS when it just is hardened Android; it is doomed purely because of the Android base.
Perhaps a Linux based edition of GrapheneOS would do well, even if it will not have a lot of app compatibility. There's only so much patching you have to do to Android before it just becomes more work than good.
I looked into the Light Phone and The Mudita Kompakt, but I ended up buying a refurbished Pixel 8 and putting Graphene OS on it, then I installed only essential apps I need. I keep my old iPhone 12 in a drawer at home and use it for anytime I Need any apps that don't work on a custom ROM, which includes my bank app (plus, imo, it's safer not carry around a phone that has my baking data on it in case it gets lost or stolen).
The light phones are a really cool concept but the Light Phone 3 is quite expensive (more expensive than a new Pixel 10) and the Mudita Kompakt seems to have a huge amount of grievances from users on their forum, so that put me off.
if you don't want some system app running just "uninstall" (disable) it with Shizuku + Canta on any non-rooted Android, my current phone is the first one in 15 years with Android which I didn't root since unlocking bootloader on XIaomi is pretty much impossible, but anyway I can achieve pretty much same results with Shizuku and additional apps like Canta, Hail, Shizuwall, etc.
Potential benefits:
as mentioned, Android 17 prohibits uninstalling system apps, but allows disabling disabling apps is usually safer, and they could be re-enabled from Settings in some cases many system apps run in the background after being uninstalled, but it's unknown whether they do when disabled. Neutral:
some apps might get re-enabled unless they're uninstalled (or the opposite). Potential harm:
that would make it more risky for those who prefer to uninstall instead to save storage most of the already listed apps are primarily tested for uninstalling rather than disabling disabling instead, decreases privacy by not hiding apps, keeping the device unique.
We'll see what happens with the proposed ADB changes. Lots of no one asking for this, lots of people describing how badly their phone use will be greviously impacted, and seemingly very little discussion/engagement/justification. Maybe they'll fire the bullet anyways. https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/526109803
Perhaps the problem is our desire to have everything, no matter what the compromises are. Perhaps the problem is our inability to say, I'm going to go with product X even though it lacks Y because we actually own X. There is virtually no incentive for competition to pop up in such an environment since established companies have a lead of years, decades if you consider the size of the established companies, so consumers will follow their lead.
I don't mean to suggest that buying alternatives is a solution to the problem as a whole, but doing so may allow enough niche products to survive to give those of us who are interested in alternatives and alternative to choose from.
It was always a bit surprising you could uninstall an app in a "read only" partition