Submitted 1 day ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to technology@lemmy.zip
https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/19/google_android_unverified_apps/
Chocolate Factory describes concession as an attempt to balance openess with safety
“Scammers rely on manufactured urgency, so this breaks their spell and gives you time to think.” - Are these scams actually a real thing? I’ve never heard of such a thing happening, but I’m not well connected to things like people and their experiences.
it strikes me as another manufactured concern, to justify their malignent ambitions
It definitely is a thing, especially for the elderly. I’m not sure what percentage of scams are done that way, but it’s much easier to scam someone if they don’t have a chance to think much about what’s happening.
That being said, most of the scams I know of that do this don’t ask you to install an app on your phone. They just ask personal questions or for login details or something like that
most of the scams I know of that do this don’t ask you to install an app on your phone
ok, so what has blocking ‘unverified’ developers got to do with protecting people from scams, then? To be clear, I’m not asking if scams exist, I’m asking if scams that ask people to install dodgy apps exist. I’m extremely sceptical about this part!
On PC they’ll have the user install TeamViewer. I’m assuming there’s some scammers that might do this for phone
Pig Butchering scams typically would rely on an app for the the “investing” portion of the scam. They use apps that are in the google play store, because that comes with a belief of some level of (completely false) security and legitimacy for people that don’t know better which makes people more likely to believe it is a real investing app and not a trap.
The process is designed to create friction. Users must first enable developer mode in system settings. They then need to confirm that they’re not being coerced. After that, they need to restart their phone and reauthenticate. And then they need to wait one day.
I hope this little interview is entirely on-device. It would be terrible if installing apps of our choice on our hardware required any contact with Google (even in the background).
On device? While google services are present there? In this universe?
Google: Pull your pants down. Bend over and grab your ankles. Hold that position because this is going to take a while.
Balance *user acceptance with *control
I have a sideloaded program that hooks in as an accessibility app. Several times a week android asks me to review the programs access. Its maddening how far they go to shit on user choice.
Chocolate Factory describes concession as an attempt to balance openess with safety
I describe the concession as an attempt to balance user control with public backlash
The process is designed to create friction. Users must first enable developer mode in system settings. They then need to confirm that they’re not being coerced. After that, they need to restart their phone and reauthenticate. And then they need to wait one day.
Waiting one day is totally unreasonable. However, I won’t mind turning it on in developer settings.
The slippery on that slope is there are already banking and government apps that refuse to work if your phone has enabled developer options.
I think I would call this a win. Can’t imagine life without reVanced.
Sure, it’s a win for power users. It’s not a win at all developers trying to publish an app without getting Google’s approval, since nobody is going to follow this process to install an app.
Unfortunately, it’s not a win, mostly because enough people will think it is and stop thinking about it, let alone talking about it or pushing back.
I don’t think the"normal" user installs APKs.
buckykat@hexbear.net 1 day ago
so-far
IDew@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
You can probably bypass the 1 day wait time by changing your system time but they really want you not do it
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 23 hours ago
That’s really unlikely