this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
519 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

74924 readers
2517 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 53 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This is actually worse than integration in Play Protect which can be disabled very easily. Now you can only install unsigned apps via ADB which means just developers can do it.

[–] COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Leaving ADB open to unverified apps is more than I was expecting. ADB is reasonably straightforward to use even without actually being an Android developer.

There was never any way they'd integrate it to play protect and still allow play protect to be disabled. I prefer this to being required to use play protect personally, though the services do seem somewhat redundant. Presumably the whole point of doing this is to create an Apple style walled garden (which is of course very profitable). Google likely doesn't want to fully lock it down and risk legal trouble, they just need to make it difficult enough that the masses don't bother installing unapproved apps that may not act in Google's interests.

I still hope the EU takes legal action against this anyway.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I don't think this adds anything tbh as peoppe with adb would always be able to bypass this. The issue is that this kills distribution and thats exactly what Google wants - have full competitive control. Once they don't like your app they'll block your account and what do you do with your customer base? Give them adb install instructions? That's basically a death sentence for any app.

[–] SparroHawc@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Or anyone with a computer who installs ADB. You don't have to be a developer.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nah you can't realistically distribute your app with adb requirement. No one will bother to go through such friction.

[–] SparroHawc@lemmy.zip -3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Although you are correct, you still don't have to be a developer to find use in ADB. I've used it and I've never been interested enough in developing for Android to do more than install the SDK for it once.

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 4 points 20 hours ago

Knowing what an SDK is already puts you in the 1% most knowledgeable users

[–] arararagi@ani.social 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And very annoying too since some government apps don't like it when you have developer mode on.

[–] Zanshi@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Not only government. I can't see my daughter's insulin pump status if I don't disable developer mode.

I believe I got a notification that it disables NFC payments when developer mode is enabled. Which I know not as many people use it in the U.S. but some do.

Shit, I've disabled developer mode and still can't access my bank app