• Ferk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Samsung s22 and s25

    I’m still holding some hope that maybe Samsung’s flavor of the OS won’t have the restriction of requiring Google keys. Specially considering that Samsung has its own “Galaxy Store” with app submissions controlled by them, not Google.

    Though it’s possible they might simply extend the signatures accepted to include also the ones signed by them ^^U …still it would give them a competitive edge to remove the restriction so they might be incentivized to do it.

    • d-RLY?@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Would be nice, but I imagine that Samsung would both need to actually be impacted in an meaningful way with their store, and find some way to prevent Play Services (which they have to meet requirements to be able to load on their devices) from just nope-ing non-registered apps. Both of which I seriously doubt would happen.

      They have already been working pretty close with Google on things that removed their actual Tizen OS from stuff like their watches in favor of merging their code into Android Wear OS. Would also guess that they might just work something out to either force apps on their store to be signed by Samsung and cleared by Google. Or that they just require apps on their store to only be listed after registering with Google. Not like Samsung really cares about supporting side-loading if the apps aren’t in their (or Google’s) store.

      Sadly I think only a OEM like Samsung would have the massive levels of hardware sales and money for making a real fight against Google. F-Droid and other alt-stores or projects lack both and are easy to ignore. If Samsung were to be actually concerned about this, then I think we would have already seen them filing lawsuits and pushing posts/news articles condemning Google’s plans like F-Droid keeps doing (aside from lawsuits due to money).

      • Ferk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        You are probably right… it’s just one hope I had, I’m not expecting it to happen, but I’ll be hopeful until the end.

        Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

        • d-RLY?@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Nothing wrong with finding small hopes here and there where you can. I too had briefly thought about Samsung’s store (I have an S24 Ultra, Tab S8+, and my old S20+) maybe being large and known enough by more users than F-Droid. But their lack of press releases pushing back on Google was what told me enough. If Samsung’s store was actively used more than the Play Store on their phones (and had enough really popular apps that weren’t also on the Play Store), then it would at least be something.

          Sadly even if Samsung’s store is able to somehow get a pass by Google, I highly doubt that the devs of apps that are only on F-Droid would list them on there. And would still only help Samsung devices (though I know I would start using Samsung’s store a lot more if those devs did list them on there). Though I might find reasons to use my S20+ for some apps that I like having but don’t use daily, and my tablet is on Android 15 so it will be used for stuff I use more often (never thought I would be excited for it to not get major updates).

          The main actively used daily app that I am dreading losing (due to the current dev not planning to ever list their active fork on Play Store) is SyncThing-Fork on my Android devices (use different SyncThing apps for PC/Steam Deck). It has been the only multi-platform sync program that actually works correctly for my password vault on my Android devices. Though it is possible that the dev might get it whitelisted, but I am not going to hold my breath. As the main dilemma on a per app level is that the more apps that fall in line ends up supporting Google’s actions, but at the same time not getting whitelisted means just going away (at least on fully updated Android 16+ devices).

      • Ferk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        I mean, you can hack/root most devices, even right now. I expect that’s not changing.

    • Kevin@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      If they want a lot of play store banking apps + other things that opt into play protect to work they’ll need to add the signature verification requirement.

      • Ferk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Will the banks in Korea, EU and many other areas where Samsung phones are very common keep that restriction if it meant alienating that many users? I doubt it. That’s why I think the support of a big player on this would be a killing move.

        Also I’m not 100% convinced that it’s impossible to have some verification without it depending on this one change.

        • Kevin@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          That’s a really good point, basically throw their weight around a bit eh?

      • cardfire@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        I’m even willing to use the web apps or webpages for banking, if the browsers can make the handshakes. I’ll forfeit using the bank first party apps, if their websites are full featured.

        • Kevin@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          100%, my bank thankfully doesn’t tick that box, but if it did I wouldn’t think twice about dropping the app. Freedom is more important.