I respect people's right to use apple products, but please stop asserting "privacy", big corps doesn't give a shit.
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2025
475 points (92.8% liked)
memes
17578 readers
2927 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not "non-approved apps", unsigned apps. They're not running approval on the software itself. And technically you can still sideload signed software. And you can sideload unsigned software in non-Google certified Android devices, too.
Hey, I hate their stupid power grab, it sucks and I hope regulators intervene, but if you're gonna get all pretentious and uppity about everybody else's responses you're gonna get fact checked. I don't make the rules.
Say, I wanna run an F-Droid app, I trust F-Droid's signature, but Google doesn't, therefore, I can't run it. Tell me: How is that not an "approval process".
And how about izzyondroid or The Guardian? What if they don't wanna show their IDs or if Google deems them "untrustworthy". (They are more safe than the "Play Store" btw, Google can't even keep their own stores free of malware lol, which a bunch of volunteers have much safer apps)
I can already tell this is going to be one of those conversations you get online where people are just itching for somebody to defend the position they want to argue against and will just have that argument regardless of what the other side says.
But because I'm a very flawed person I'll still go for it and note that technically if F-Droid is the one signing all the apps and Google doesn't like one of them, they'd have to ban F-Droid's entire account, not just the one app. Anything else would require them to look at the apps in the first place, which in this scenario they are not doing.
But it's certainly possible that they'll ban a specific developer (or a store if the store is doing the signing), and that's one of the reasons why this scheme is unacceptable.
What it is not is an approval process, since... you know, they're not looking at the apps themselves. Words mean things.
Presumably, at least nominally, Google wants the signatures to be able to tie an app to a developer. Whether they are going to ban people proactively or not we simply don't know because their stupid policy is barely communicated and they seem to intend to get it rolling before addressing any of these because Apple already used this loophole successfully so why the hell not, I suppose.