You might sideload an Android app, or manually install its APK package, if you’re using a custom version of Android that doesn’t include Google’s Play Store. Alternately, the app might be experimental, under development, or perhaps no longer maintained and offered by its developer. Until now, the existence of sideload-ready APKs on the web was something that seemed to be tolerated, if warned against, by Google.
This quiet standstill is being shaken up by a new feature in Google’s Play Integrity API. As reported by Android Authority, developer tools to push “remediation” dialogs during sideloading debuted at Google’s I/O conference in May, have begun showing up on users’ phones. Sideloaders of apps from the British shop Tesco, fandom app BeyBlade X, and ChatGPT have reported “Get this app from Play” prompts, which cannot be worked around. An Android gaming handheld user encountered a similarly worded prompt from Diablo Immortal on their device three months ago.
Google’s Play Integrity API is how apps have previously blocked access when loaded onto phones that are in some way modified from a stock OS with all Google Play integrations intact. Recently, a popular two-factor authentication app blocked access on rooted phones, including the security-minded GrapheneOS. Apps can call the Play Integrity API and get back an “integrity verdict,” relaying if the phone has a “trustworthy” software environment, has Google Play Protect enabled, and passes other software checks.
Graphene has questioned the veracity of Google’s Integrity API and SafetyNet Attestation systems, recommending instead standard Android hardware attestation. Rahman notes that apps do not have to take an all-or-nothing approach to integrity checking. Rather than block installation entirely, apps could call on the API only during sensitive actions, issuing a warning there. But not having a Play Store connection can also deprive developers of metrics, allow for installation on incompatible devices (and resulting bad reviews), and, of course, open the door to paid app piracy.
OK I’m not going crazy then.
I use apps that aren’t available in my region for language study, so this could end up being a real problem for me.
Lucky Patcher?
Androids best advantage used to be full control of the device… Those were the days. Then it started with saying they know better than you, then locking you out. Now I’m waiting on a new, better solution.
Honestly it’s not like native Linux is too far fetched, but there would have to be a big open source common ground device collaboration.
So the EU’s been forcing Apple to allow sideloading and Google goes Nah, it’ll be fine?
Google still allows sideloading, it’s the app developers that can prevent you from installing their app from other sources than Google Play. Sideloading an app works fine on Android if the app’s developer allows it. Apple didn’t allow that even if the app devs wanted it.
You are technically (and possibly legally) correct… But the spirit of the law is allowing customers to install what they want on their devices.
This move defuses the responsibility to the developers but EU showed in the past that what they care is the spirit of the law and not the law itself…and they are happy to change the laws to make them more adherent to the spirit
I would be really happy if you’re right, but I sadly think Google’s fine here. As far as I understand it, this particular regulation is to prevent a powerful actor (Google, Apple) to use their monopolistic powers to shut alternative stores down. It’s not about allowing customers to install whatever and however. Google doesn’t shut anyone down with this, so they should be fine. They give the option for app developers to choose if they want to run only on an attested platform - which they sell as a completely optional security feature that nobody has to use.
My guess is if the EU is going to take this further it would have to be regarding a potential monopoly on the attested platforms on the device. Google only offering their own platform as trusted could potentially be seen as another monopolistic behavior. If we’re lucky.
The problem is though that the attested platform only accepts Google play as a store, for this to be truly fair you’d need a way to set a default store setting up and then the attestation API checks that store, but as things currently are it’s giving Google play store an unfair advantage.
Waiting for steamphone
Man I really hate how they stripped your permissions to access the internal and external storage, files can no longer access data from other apps even if you say allow all file access. Also if your phone supports SD cards, you might notice that you don’t have write access to it for some reason on later versions of android. (I really struggled with this with my Galaxy S9 on Lineage), had to use apps that remounted my SD card and what not
Yeah, it happens to Spotify mods as well. This isn’t good
I have an android DAP (music player) that runs Android 7. It’s a box with a headphone jack (remember those?) and it’s sole purpose is to play offline music from an SD card.
I side-loaded a few music players, because there’s no way I’m putting my Google password in android 7 in 2024.
I’d be upset if I couldn’t side load. These DAPs never have an up to date android.
Let’s hope the music apps I use don’t block sideloading.
Poweramp won’t. Musicolet?
Likely android 7 would not honor (or even be aware) of this new metadata bit. You’ll be fine 🙂
Was always inching closer, but looks like android has fully outstayed its welcome. The revolving door of executives hit its last person with any integrity on the ass on their way out the door.
This explains why I couldn’t install retroarch on the GalaxyS24 Ultra of a friend via apk or google play store. Would not work, but somehow the Galaxy store version worked….
Can we do anything ?
Custom ROM or just go back to a flip phone.
It’s only going to get worse with the big players from this point on.
I honestly think I’ll be getting a feature phone next time. I’ll keep an old smartphone just for Android Auto and that’s it.
Some time ago, I looked at kaios devices, and they looked really cool. I only didn’t get one because I need to use some banking apps only available for android
i JUST started enjoying adfree YouTube via revanced, now it could go away?! fuck lol
This has absolutely nothing to do with ReVanced.
oh okay, thanks
If the Play Store becomes required like that then Android’s already-shaky status as an open source base platform is going to go out the window. I’m glad there are non-Google distros of Android but there really needs to be more of a push to make a completely FOSS phone platform.
There are Linux mobile operating systems like PostmarketOS, but they are too early in development to be used by most people.
Murena phones look promising. And you can download their e/OS if you want to flash the phone you have, provided it’s supported. https://murena.com
There are Linux phones available. I,m going to guess popularity of those devices to increase soon.
But part of the appeal of Linux is the fact that you can repurpose existing computers running other OSes to run Linux instead. This is a great way to lower the barrier to entry for Linux, because it’s easy to test it on a Live USB or a dual boot. It’s much harder to do this on phones because they have locked bootloaders.
Another problem is that phones are not productivity devices - they’re consumption devices. Maybe this is just my personal bias, but I don’t think people will be as passionate about liberating their phones because they’re inherently less useful than computers. Convenient, yes, but useful? Not as much.
That said, I would love to be proven wrong. I would definitely consider a Linux phone if they become more popular/useful, but I can’t really justify spending hundreds of euros/dollars on something for which I don’t see any particular use.
When I say Linux phones, I mean selling a phone with Linux already or Linux ready, not taking existing phones with Android and putting Linux on them.
Examples:
Purism Librem 5
PinePhone Pro
Pro1 X
Volla Phone X23
I,m going to guess popularity of those devices to increase soon.
I don’t want to be pessimistic about it, however I think it’s gonna be like Windows: enshittification will happen, but inconvenience is “too small” for people that they’ll rather check for a workaround than leave the platform.
My guess is that we need something more appealing like the Steam Deck to make people take the step.
My guess is that we need something more appealing like the Steam Deck to make people take the step.
Hear me out! The Steam Phone®!
Steam’s UI is tolerable, but inconsistent. In a SteamDeck, OK, but in a phone? Idk.
I get that this isn’t meant that seriously.
I’d be happy with 2010 era desktop Linux level of support. It doesn’t need to get everybody to switch, just needs to be good enough for my needs.
There aren’t, really. There are a few antiques and half baked things.
A big problem is that these days, unless you’re the size of Apple or Samsung, it’s impossible to get a reasonable hardware soc and modem other than one which only runs a soon obsolete blob laden android which is going to be EOL before you’ve even finished your design.
The hardware is not there. The firmware/hw data/platform isn’t there even to begin OS work with. And there’s a global shipping, regulation and mobile operator hell waiting on the other side. And a product lifecycle that’s only a few years long.
Yes, I’ve worked for phone manufacturers.
Linux isn’t even popular on desktop. No way a mobile version becomes popular without some massive shifts in Linux ideology and culture.
You take that back now!
That was the hope with Android, too.
The problem is that as the OS is “free” that means it costs less functionally for the device manufacturer to get an OS on the device, so now they can pour more money into bloatware.
Android was supposed to stop bloatware but all it did was enable it.
Even without a forced “store” Linux is prey to the same issue of piecemeal support from various vendors all with in-house solutions that all stink.
At this point, even that would be preferable.
Your right, any open platform will be bastardized eventually, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t still a need for “resets”.
There is no perfect platform for escaping it, because the market forces will always adapt and assimilate. The only true escape is to keep moving.
That’s why it’s important for users to be hermit crabs, and move to the next thing, no matter how janky, because they will at least be able to influence it positively and have a relatively open platform for a number of years. Then the cycle repeats.
If propping up Linux phones will get us the open platform we need, even if only temporarily, we should do it.
The issue I think is that the current trends in all consumer software are increasingly user hostile, and the major platforms are creating ecosystems to support this. It’s become the norm now to be able to directly control the usage of the software on consumer devices. Apple has normalized this, Google and Microsoft followed.
At what point will developers refuse to even create software for a system that doesn’t allow them that control?
Look at how many developers out there absolutely jerk themselves raw at the idea they should be able to compel users to update to continue using their software. Look at how many believe the modern security culture fallacy that handcuffing users and throwing away the key is the only way to protect them.
It’s a development culture issue. Respecting user control of their own device is no longer in vogue.
As much as I want that to be the case, I don’t think full mobile gnu+Linux is really ready to use daily?
I haven’t exactly been keeping up with things, mind you
Yes. I think a huge issue is Linux doesn’t handle other app activities like how Android’s Intent or Broadcast does.
Just a note, one of if not the most popular mobile Linux distro is PostmarketOS, which is not GNU (it’s based on Alpine)
Good to know, that’s not the one I had in mind, however.
For whatever reason I thought PMOS was based on Manjaro. Could be something as silly as associating one green logo with another.
I used it as my daily phone for months, and… well, I’m willing to deal with the problems. Without pretty careful battery management it’s not feasible, and it’s hard to manage your battery given the glitches. I often found my phone dead after a couple hours because it woke the screen immediately after I locked it because… reasons, and then kept it awake until the battery died. The biggest issue aside stuff like that (small issues that cause big problems), the biggest issue was I couldn’t get a map app working. There are some distros with working maps, none for my phone. Also call quality was horrendous. Like. I’m known for being able to tolerate bad quality, but this was, at times, about as bad as I remember my firefly phone being when I was 12, and I could not feasibly understand people at times with that thing.
But the only reason I stopped using it was because the wifi isn’t working on it. Once I get that back up and running I’ll likely switch back to it. As bad as it can be at times, I still feel more comfortable having that as my primary phone than my Android.
Really appreciate the insight
I sub to a few mobile Linux feeds and I want but don’t at all think mobile Linux is ready, even for tech devotees. Too battery hungry, not enough ease of use, missing functions, etc. And that’s not including lack of apps.
Sailfish gets closest so far I think. But yes, not ready. Ubuntu touch last time I tried is fine but still a bit out of sorts.
Sadly the only people who would switch over to an actual Linux phone would be the people like the stereotypical Linux using Lemmy user. The average android user would just continue on like nothing happened because they’re not tech literate enough to know what’s going on or why they should care.
Hey! I bought this android cus Im Tech literate u-u
Though im not one bit familiar with Linux.
If someone would be buying those, someone would be selling. You have all the opportunity to fork current android, put it on a different platform, make sure all the drivers are open source instead of blobs, and sell it.
I’d really want to buy one. But I’ll only do that after you somehow make sure the 3-5 major messaging apps, 2-3 major browsers, and a really good maps app are available.
So, basically, it’s a 100 mil endeavor for an MVP really. So, I think, the chances of someone actually pulling it off are pretty slim.
Seems stupid of them to crackdown on sideloading given their recent and ongoing monopoly spanking.
The more I think about it, this may finally convince me to…shudders…switch to an iPhone. I’ve always stayed on Android because despite the recent Google bullshit, it still for the most part lets me do whatever. Side-loading apks is a huge part of that.
If it’s turning into a shittier iOS clone, what’s the point?
Don’t do IOS, it’s such a pain. It took us 2 days to figure out how to play an audio book file that I was able to download an F-droid app for and play in like 3 minutes.
Yup that sounds about right for iOS.
Meant more that if Android ends up in the same boat (and by the looks of it, that’s exactly what Google and Samsung want), then iOS starts to look viable because the situation becomes: all the same bullshit but iOS is polished to a shine.
Don’t plan on switching phones until my less than year old Note 9 kicks the bucket 😅
Can you side load on ios?
Seems like the kind of thing they wouldn’t want you to do?
Google Pain Services. Google Pisses Itself API.
Well that fucking sucks
App developers need ways to know the app has not been modified in unsanctioned manner, glad to see Android finally catching up on security with integrity checks.
It’s my phone. If I’m specifically going out of my way to do that, they have no right to force me to do it their way.
Yup, this is important for certain apps with a high security bar. Surprised at all the downvotes.
Slippery slope. Soon it wil be for all fucking mundane apps because they don’t want you running a modded version…which is my fucking choice to do
removed by mod
certain apps with a high security bar
like the McDonalds app, which already requires workarounds to work on rooted devices?
You want affordable food, you WILL pay them with your data. Always on location please! Oh and precise as well, thank you.
Of course not, sometimes it really is just corpo bs, don’t use their app if it’s such an issue for you.
This is Lemmy. If you’re not advocating for FOSS, or piracy to spite the corporations, you’re gonna get downvoted. I don’t care. We need better security standards whether these kids like it or not.
Security by default is fine, but not if its being forced.
If I go out of my way to root my phone or sideload an app, I have a reason for that. I’m fine with an app going “Hey! This phone is rooted / this app is not from an official source! Wait 10s before you can click ‘I understand and take full responsibikity in case of a security breach’”.
I’m not OK with an app going “I will not work on this device because yiur environment is non-standard, period”.
This does jack-all for security, it’s just monopolization in disguise and you’re buying into it.
No, this will only lead people without access to Google Play to be forced to get it from somebody who has modified the app to fake the check.
deleted by creator
If they don’t have access to Play, then the developer of that app specifically does not want to service them as a user. Developers have to enable this feature in their own apps for it to do anything. If that developer wanted to support de-Googled users, they wouldn’t enable this in the first place.
Personally, it’s not Google’s place to dictate how an app verification ecosystem works. If a company has developed an app, they need to be the ones to make sure it’s secure in the first place, not trusting a monopolist tech company that has almost all control with how someone uses their phone.
Google has rules yes, but Android is open-source and should be open with a free & open market for apps. After all, we paid for the device.
Why do you think apps should verify their integrity in the first place? In the case of banking apps or other online apps, the APIs they use should be secure in the first place so a user can’t achieve anything meaningful by modifying API calls. In the case of offline games with monetization, a hacker who makes a pirated APK will also remove the restriction so legitimate players on non standart ROMs will get screwed. In the case of messaging apps with a “delete messages” or “one time view” function ie. Whatsapp, the sender shouldn’t take that their actions will be respected by other clients because modded apps exist and Whatsapp doesn’t care if you install it on a rooted device.
This!
APK signatures exist and they’re enough for making sure the file you got isn’t modified. Warning people when they use apks for stuff like banking, I get, but if they wanna take the risk, it’s on them.
Blocking root makes no sense because I’d argue that if the person knows enough to root their phone and got past all those bricked phone/thermonuclear war warnings, the onus is on them to not get their keychain compromised by giving root to some random app. Again, a warning is fine.
Aside from that, people need to understand: THE CLIENT IS NEVER SECURE. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Any self respecting secure API is made under the assumption that all the calls are coming from some malicious state actor using
curluntil proven beyond doubt that it’s an actual user.API are secure only if you can secure the authentication details. A modified app (be it as something modified and distributed on a unsanctioned channel, or custom injected by another malicious actor/app) can easily siphon out your authentication tokens to a third party unbeknownst to you the user. However, if the app verifies it came from the approved source and have not been tempered with, then it is much easier to lean on ASLR and other OS level security to make it harder to extract the authentication info.
Multiplayer game operators have obligation to curb modified clients so their actual paying clients have a levelled playing field. By ensuring their apps are only distributed via approved channels and unmodified by malicious players, this improves their odds at warding off cheaters creating a bad time for those that actually pay them to play fairly.
These are just simple cases where this kind of security is beneficial. I am glad Android is finally catching up in this regard.
be it as something modified and distributed on a unsanctioned channel
Downloading APKs from reputable sources and signature checking can help with this one. Android will refuse to upgrade an app if APK has a different signature anyways.
custom injected by another malicious actor/app
If this is possible there are bigger problems.
Multiplayer game operators have obligation to curb modified clients so their actual paying clients have a levelled playing field.
There isn’t much I can say for that.
This seems like a brilliant feature to roll out as they’re getting investigated by the DOJ for being a monopoly.
Google : “You don’t own your phone, we own you.”
I unironically think so. It offloads the blame onto individual app developers. Google can turn around and say oh well it’s what the market wants
This has almost nothing to do with Google, it’s a feature that has to be enabled by the app developer. Meaning they want to exclude users getting the APK for their app from elsewhere.
Kinda. It might be 3rd parties using it but it is 100% an API designed by Google to keep apps on Google Play.
For all we know it could have been requested years ago by developers who have apps that get pirated but there was no mechanism in place to implement it at the time, and wasn’t a priority.
Just because it’s beneficial to Google maintaining more direct control now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the origin.
If an app gets pirated they’re going to have thrown out this check too.
Well, there is a separate system for pirating prevention, the Google Play license check. That has existed for years.
Also, didn’t the EU declare that Apple needs to allow other app stores on their devices?
This seems like a bonehead move all around…
In this case, it seems like it’s the app makers themselves who are requiring the Play Store, though. Unless I’m misreading this, the developers are using the Integrity API to determine if the app was installed through “official channels” (in this case, the Play Store). Feels like people should be upset at the companies behind the apps, here.
Okay. Then either use older backup versions of those apps before the requirement of the Play Store, or just quit using those apps and services and switch to less enshittified apps and services.
Easier said than done these days, I know…
everyone wants to be like apple
Android already has other apps stores, like F-Droid.
Yes, I know. The point is that people seeking privacy eventually won’t be able to use their banking apps and other online financial accounts unless they’re signed into Google Play to ‘authenticate’ the app.
AKA force you into letting them steal more of your private info…
I kinda understand it from the bank’s perspective… They need to reduce risk which is why a lot of banking apps check if the phone is rooted (if it’s rooted, how can you be sure that a malicious app with root access isn’t patching the app in memory and redirecting transfers to a different account?)
Having said that, I really don’t think they need to restrict it such that the app can only be installed through the Play store, as long as the app is properly signed and uses certificate pinning to prevent MitM attacks.
Fidelity apps doesn’t require any of this shite?
But some shiti cash-app does?
I wonder why 🤔
