I read somewhere that GrapheneOS devs have a strategy which they believe will work -- they strip out something or other about app/device attestation (?) from APK files before installing occurs, or the enforcement code itself from their spin of the OS, so sideloading (ie., user-controlled installation) can still work.

I sure hope so... I think everyone in their respective country needs to scream at their local regulators about this.

Of course, this will only help those whose devices GrapheneOS can run on.

Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 52 pts · 322d (7 replies)

The GrapheneOS team is already in communications with an Android OEM to see if they can make a device that meets their specs, hopefully that bears fruit in a year or two.

MrSoup@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 322d (4 replies)

Do you have source to this?

other8026@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 322d (2 replies)

Just check the project's X account. The OEM partnership is mentioned very regularly.

jnod4@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 322d (1 reply)

Hope it's a Chinese phone

211@sopuli.xyz · 10 pts · 321d

Hope it's Fairphone.

Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 322d

It's a bit of telephone, I originally heard it from this user.

https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/16087016

Scolding7300@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 321d (1 reply)

[ removed ]

Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 321d

A device that meets GrapheneOS's requirements to be installed on. I don't think it will be exclusive or anything.

other8026@lemmy.ml · 24 pts · 322d (6 replies)

Google has already shared how apps' developers will be verified. They're adding another app that will have access to block installing apps or disable them. That won't work on GrapheneOS because 1. the app won't be installed and 2. the app won't have that kind of privileged access.

Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 322d

ROFL we got redstarOS on mainstream phones before gta6

BCsven@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 322d (2 replies)

I think the issue is new hardware and google starting to close source android, so that Graphene devs don't have the open source to work with. They'll probably get binary blobs

other8026@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 321d (1 reply)

It's my understanding that the changes that were made didn't make things more or less proprietary. Some drivers are still open source, others are still closed source. The device trees mostly have other things in them like configuration files and stuff like that.

BCsven@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 321d

It sounds OK for now, but it seems Google is on a path of closing things up like Apple.

shaggyb@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 321d (1 reply)

Soooo we just block that app, right?

other8026@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 321d

It just won't work on GrapheneOS. Not sure if disabling it will work on the stock OS. We will have to wait and see on that one.

ExtremeDullard@piefed.social · 15 pts · 322d (3 replies)

And how long is it going to work?

Do we really want to play cat and mouse with Google? I don't.

other8026@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 322d

The way Google will block apps with unverified developers won't work on GrapheneOS. The change won't be part of AOSP. On the stock OS, the functionality will be handled by another Google app that has privileged access. GrapheneOS won't be affected directly.

WhatGodIsMadeOf@feddit.org · 11 pts · 322d (1 reply)

Right... I want to see Linux distros.

Corridor8031@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 322d

[ removed ]

orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 322d (13 replies)

I hope so as well. This debacle with RCS not working on GrapheneOS has been a real dick-punch. I really don't want to go back to a stock OS.

other8026@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 322d (2 replies)

It's my understanding that RCS was fixed for most users after this update: https://grapheneos.org/releases#2025092700. You may need to grant permissions to Google Play Services first, then clear Google Messages' storage, grant permissions to Google Messages, then try setting it up again.

orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 322d (1 reply)

It was not. I have been on the Discord #Testing channel working with others to troubleshoot. Those steps do not work.

It seemed to be fixed on the 20251003 release, a lot of people got it working for a while, including me. It died within 24 hours.

other8026@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 321d

I said "most users". There are some who are still experiencing issues, which is being looked into. Other people have had issues that were fixed by clearing the storage for Google Play, Google Play Services, Google Messages, then granting all necessary permissions before launching Google Messages again.

rhythmisaprancer@piefed.social · 3 pts · 321d (5 replies)

I have accepted no RCS. I miss some of the features, sure, but until I can get more than one person to use something like signal I'll stick with insecure SMS thru a FOSS provider I guess.

orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 321d (4 replies)

I have like 40 people on Signal and regularly chat with a dozen of them there. Some people see the benefits, others don't. I am lucky.

rhythmisaprancer@piefed.social · 3 pts · 321d (3 replies)

That sounds great! So far, after five years, I have won a single person. Even back when Signal worked as a more regular messenger. Happy for you 🙂

orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 321d (2 replies)

Hopefully we can all get more people on it. I adopted Signal almost ten years ago, so that helped. Keep spreading the word and it'll grow.

rhythmisaprancer@piefed.social · 1 pts · 321d (1 reply)

Thanks for the encouragement! The one person is a key player in that network so maybe! Hard to fight with the apple folks.

orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 321d

The kool-aid is sugary.

Chulk@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 322d (3 replies)

I thought the RCS thing was also happening on stock Android? Wasn't it more of a carrier thing?

orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 322d (2 replies)

It's been largely fixed for stock with select regions still being affected. RCS is failing on GOS because the correct device ID isn't getting reported and the verification services won't authenticate the OS.

It'll work for about 24 hours, give or take, from a fresh installation, but after that RCS dies and no longer works. Any groups you were in will see you as departed and you will lose any future messages to that group.

It's pretty fucked.

Chulk@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 322d (1 reply)

Thanks, I had no idea of the severity. I wonder if they'll be able to fix it.

I convinced my fiance to switch over to GOS because I've had moderate success with it for about a year now. So of course this happens as soon as she made the switch. Now she's talking about getting an iPhone.

orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 322d

Ain't that how it always goes? Best I could do with mine was to get her to use Signal. Better than nothing, I guess.

bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 321d (2 replies)

Shouldn't they be keeping bypass strategies a secret right now?

rumba@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 321d (1 reply)

Shouldn’t they be keeping bypass strategies a secret right now?

They're up against a company with more money and developers than they know what to do with. This is, at most, a game of cat and mouse. Secrecy will buy them a sprint or so.

If Google wants to go nuclear, they can do some rolling encryption bullshit or put a million calls all over the OS to check app validity and stop open source altogether.

FEIN@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 321d

and bloat default android devices even more! 🎉

nicgentile@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 322d (13 replies)

This will face legal hurdles, especially in the EU and China. It reminds me of the time Microsoft played shell games with Chrome and Firefox and then lost eventually. That being said, it will kickstart a new mobile OS arms race, not necessarily to beat Android but for choices.

ISOmorph@feddit.org · 11 pts · 322d (1 reply)

This will definitely not be challenged in the EU. It's the whole basis that makes chat control possible on a technical level.

porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 322d

The markets authority and antitrust offices are different people than the chat control people, they aren't a unified organisation, they will probably argue about it.

pr06lefs@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 322d

would love it if some viable linux based alternatives came out of this.

Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 322d (1 reply)

HarmonyOS already exists in China as a fork of android, I wonder if something similar may spawn from the EU

nicgentile@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 322d

I'm surprises at how SailfishOS has a limited presence. This could be that moment. HarmonyOS is sick. I've seen it in action and it is on another league.

Corridor8031@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 322d (7 replies)

[ removed ]

JBrickelt963@jlai.lu · 3 pts · 321d (2 replies)

Above all, the organisation behind it must be or become sufficiently robust, like GNU/Linux, in order to take up the torch, but that requires a lot of financial backing.

It's not impossible, but in my opinion it won't happen right away and is likely to take time to implement. Once that's done, the only issue left will be installation (for users, that is).

Corridor8031@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 321d (1 reply)

[ removed ]

JBrickelt963@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 319d

That was a possibility, but if I'm not mistaken, it was either Chrome or Android.

And it seems to me that an agreement was reached on Chrome (but no sale planned). So I won't make any predictions. Especially when you see the lockdown on Android, something is brewing, and Google wouldn't allow that if it had to part with it.

Unless they are preparing for the separation by establishing as much interdependence as possible between the two in case of a takeover by another company with a partnership. Because otherwise, the community will know how to unravel and clean up the Android project.

EDIT:

If anything, I've just looked into it and it seems to be stronger than ever after this antitrust ruling. Because what you heard was more what the Ministry was asking the judge to do.

In the end, there will be no dismantling of Android or Chrome, no loss of revenue for "partners" such as Firefox.

There is an end to exclusive contracts, notably to prevent it from imposing Gemini or Chrome, but ONLY for one year. There is also data sharing, particularly related to parts of its search index, but no total obligation and nothing on advertising data, only interactions as a supplement.

It's as if it were letting its competitors take a look at its library without giving them the keys to the safe.

And to top it all off, it seems that Google is preparing a gradual merger of Chrome OS and Android for "greater hegemony". If anything, I've just looked and it seems to be stronger than ever after this antitrust decision. Because what you heard was more what the ministry was asking the judge.

In the end, there will be no dismantling of Android or Chrome, no loss of revenue for "partners" such as Firefox.

There is an end to exclusive contracts, in particular to prevent it from imposing Gemini or Chrome, but ONLY for one year. There will also be data sharing, particularly related to parts of its index, but no total obligation and nothing on advertising data, only interactions.

Here are my sources in French:

LedgeDrop@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 321d (3 replies)

... except for the binary os blobs, that'll need to be reverse engineered to run it on... well... any real hardware /s

Corridor8031@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 321d (2 replies)

[ removed ]

LedgeDrop@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 321d (1 reply)

As far as I understood from Graphene, when Google released the source code for Android 16, they also stripped all the reference code for Pixel devices.

Historically, Google would ship the code for Pixel and a software emulator as "reference designs". Now, it's only shipped with the emulator.

The Graphene Team needed to reconstruct the pixel code from the Android 15 release. Fortunately, the divergence between Android 15 and 16 was minimal, but I'm certain the division will widen as time goes by.

Corridor8031@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 321d

[ removed ]

NeedyPlatter@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 322d

sigh and here I was looking forward to switching back to Android since I missed being able to install APKS...

shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 322d

Timestamp 07:00-18:30

Flax_vert@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 322d (2 replies)

Couldn't f droid in theory request their own key?

This is a terrible situation, but surviving for a few more years isn't a bad idea

ISOmorph@feddit.org · 10 pts · 322d (1 reply)

The f-droid team spoke to that in a recent post. They can't do that for legal reasons. The post basically said that if that change isn't stopped on a government level there's no way for them to continue working. They didn't mention roms.

Edit for the link: https://f-droid.org/en/2025/09/29/google-developer-registration-decree.html

Ephera@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 322d

Here's the relevant quote:

The F-Droid project cannot require that developers register their apps through Google, but at the same time, we cannot “take over” the application identifiers for the open-source apps we distribute, as that would effectively seize exclusive distribution rights to those applications.

I think that last sentence is saying that it would work, if developers decided to exclusively distribute to F-Droid and effectively gave up control over the app to the F-Droid team.

I'm thinking there might be a possibility to register the same app under two different identifiers, one controlled by F-Droid, the other by developer.
But yeah, this makes some things more complex and might be deemed malicious behaviour by Google.

redti@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 320d

This comes with trump and its another shot at us. Class warfare!