If some company did this with computers 20 years ago they would probably go bankrupt the next year. This is what happens when tech oligarchies are allowed.
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2026
1196 points (99.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
11159 readers
1871 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, it's pretty crazy comparing this to some of the stuff Microsoft got in trouble for with Internet Explorer back in the '90s.
This is almost what apples infrastructure is....
The main difference is they (Apple) have been clear with their design choice since the beginning and they had their own market. Google is imposing this change on many users who did not want such an ecosystem to start with. But I suppose the market share of people who won't care about this will be large enough that they will survive, because they are a tech monopoly.
I mean, getting verified as a developer is a similar pain in the ass in other ecosystems. I recently got an LG smart TV and the developer mode there automatically runs out and deletes all unofficial apps after 9999h if you don't manually go into the developer app and extend the time.
My hot take is that you shouldn't have to claim that you're a developer to sideload content. It should be allowed for normal users 🤷
De-googled Android ROMs:
- GrapheneOS
- LineageOS
- /e/ OS
- Volla OS
Non-android, non-apple smartphones:
- Pinephone
- Pinephone pro
- Librem 5
- Volla Phone 22
- Jolla Phone
- FuriPhone FLX1s
And pretty much every feature phone out there (way too many to list)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Openness was the primary reason I always stuck with android. Without that, fuck them. If I have no options I'm just gonna use Huawei.
load more comments
(1 replies)
And then after doing all that you still need to confirm a scary warning every single time you install an app. As if it wasn't enough.
Can anyone explain how this isn't an illegal monopoly? I'm genuinely curious
Because there are more iPhones in America.
Ignore that Apple also makes it impossible to side load apps.
I'm not criticizing you because that's the typical term, but we really need to stop calling it side loading. It's just installing. Calling it that makes it sound like something special and different.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Apple was the canary in the coal mine for this behavior in the EU. Apple was forced to allow third party apps, so Apple mandated that everyone had to register with them, and pay them their yearly fee, and then developers had to pay Apple another fee (core technology fee, still double dipping), and governments were completely fine with that. (And developers will happily jump through more hoops to develop on iOS).
Google saw this and decided if they can, so can Google. And this technically is the easier of the two as at least this doesn't require every developer to register with Google this way.
Really good point to illustrate how liberal reform efforts just redirect capitalist control into an increasingly contrived legal system.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Stolen from elsewhere:
You are not getting screwed on this. Google is just applying lube.
I'd be interested in seeing a statistic of how much this reduces the impact of intentionally malicious apps. I know it's not the real motivation, but still.
Given that the official Google Play store has distributed intentionally malicious apps in the past, I'd say it reduces it by approximately none.
I'm sure it's a non-zero effect.
It'll also paint targets on the backs of people who are using newpipe, greyjay, and pipepipe. I'll be interesting to see if they try to coorelate people running adblock as pirates and start dumping google accounts. You could run those apps logged out prior and remain anonymous. It's very likely package installed will rat you out now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Confirm with biometrics... WTF?!
People should have the universal right to live a cellphone-free life. In my country, it is assumed that everyone uses an iPhone or a Google Android phone as if it was part of your own self.
I'm confused by this comment. The outrage is that if you want to use your phone, in the modern smartphone sense of the word which uses apps, then you have to do so by Google's rules which excludes a lot of apps you might want to run, or jump through ridiculous hoops apparently including biometrics to do so with your own device. That's terrible, but, this particular outrage is quite separate to one's ability to live a cellphone free life. I'm not going to pretend like that's not increasingly unfeasible, but this issue with identified developers doesn't have much to do with it since it's only an issue for you if you're even using a phone in the first place and then it just makes using it a much shittier time then it ought to be, it doesn't lessen or increase the dependency upon phones in general.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
i have come to love just not owning a smartphone anymore.
World is way more of an adventure when you out and about without internet connection on you.
Wana know how to get somewhere? Find a map or ask someone.
Pay something? There is cash for that.
Wana take a picture? Just take a camera with you, because lets be real 99% of the pics in your smartphones camera roll wont get viewed ever again anyhow.
Wana meet with other people? Well make out a time and spot before u leave the house...
Wana be reachable to others while u out and about? Dont! Its a wonderfull feeling not to be.
Wana pass some time while waiting for someone/something? Bring a book.
Sure it may be inconvinient for others that you are not instantly reachable 24/7. But its a wonderfull feeling not to be. To comunicate on your own terms.
Spoken like someone who isn't responsible for others. My kid is ADHD and autistic. She's high functioning, but that doesn't mean I get to just be unreachable. I'm several people's emergency contacts. I have to travel unknown places all the time and be there exactly to get the help my kid needs.
I'm a single mother. I trade off whatever they are stealing from me for the ability to get cheaper versions of what my kid needs. My job is flexible, so it allows me to take my kid to what she needs with the understanding that I can answer questions when I'm away.
Oh, I also have a deadly neurodegenerate disease that is only kept in check by this specific medication that I need to be places for a while to get. I like my phone reminding me to go get that and also being able to fill out the paperwork on my phone because of my shitty hands.
A lot of people I see who are like, "Just live without a phone!" Are not the people who are actually responsible for people and/or things. I was like that when I was young, but then you know, I became a pillar of my family and friend network. People who are unreachable when needed are dropped from my network. I know several people who when I actually needed them and it was very dire, were unreachable. I left them messages and everything. Nope. Don't think they ever knew the issue. Dropped. Sorry even in the 90s and 00s, you were expected to listen to your voice mails promptly. I shouldn't have to mount a search party to find you, which is actually necessary for some people I know.
load more comments
(5 replies)
That's life before 2000, or even up to 2005 or like. Was not bad, really. Internet was slow and stuck in computers, astalavista, radium, emule and burning dvds The evolution of cellphones into smartphones was somehow a bad move for humanity
load more comments
(1 replies)
Damn, it must be nice not to have any responsibilities or people that count on you for things.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Sounds wondeful, though it's not possible in some parts of the world. Here in Sweden you need a phone to use a lot of services, and very few places still accept cash as payment.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Okay so why not fork android and do everything foss?
All for a scam, that rarely happens...
and worse, scams that are ALL over the play store
Graphene os is a good alternative to android. Its privacy and security focused, and also does not come with google serviced preinstalled. The only problem is that its only supported on google pixels, and porting it to other devices is impossible.
Is this actually 100% true?
I know Google/Android/Alphabet sucks but this seems over the top even for them.
Thanks. The xheet and this article are almost identical.
protective waiting period
triggers me. It only protects their business interests, because that's the biggest of the multiple hurdles that are all designed to disincentivize people from doing that.
Also read: security theater
I wouldn't go quite that far. It doesn't only protect their business interest; it definitely does achieve the goals they claim—like helping non-tech-literate users to avoid getting scammed with malware—it's just they're only doing it this way because it also aligns with their business interest.
To that end I'd contest the "Security Theater" label. All security measures are ultimately implemented in a way that defends the interests of the owners. It's just that people have forgotten or aren't aware that Proprietary Software means they're not the owners.
Of course if it was just about users' safety, the most effective way to help people avoid getting scammed is to educate them, but that would make people less dependent on Google and less susceptible to vendor lock-in, and people may even start having dangerous thoughts like "it sure is weird how many identifying traits of a scam are also just standard business practices for large corporations like Google."
view more: next ›