You might sideload an Android app, or manually install its APK package, if you’re using a custom version of Android that doesn’t include Google’s Play Store. Alternately, the app might be experimental, under development, or perhaps no longer maintained and offered by its developer. Until now, the existence of sideload-ready APKs on the web was something that seemed to be tolerated, if warned against, by Google.

This quiet standstill is being shaken up by a new feature in Google’s Play Integrity API. As reported by Android Authority, developer tools to push “remediation” dialogs during sideloading debuted at Google’s I/O conference in May, have begun showing up on users’ phones. Sideloaders of apps from the British shop Tesco, fandom app BeyBlade X, and ChatGPT have reported “Get this app from Play” prompts, which cannot be worked around. An Android gaming handheld user encountered a similarly worded prompt from Diablo Immortal on their device three months ago.

Google’s Play Integrity API is how apps have previously blocked access when loaded onto phones that are in some way modified from a stock OS with all Google Play integrations intact. Recently, a popular two-factor authentication app blocked access on rooted phones, including the security-minded GrapheneOS. Apps can call the Play Integrity API and get back an “integrity verdict,” relaying if the phone has a “trustworthy” software environment, has Google Play Protect enabled, and passes other software checks.

Graphene has questioned the veracity of Google’s Integrity API and SafetyNet Attestation systems, recommending instead standard Android hardware attestation. Rahman notes that apps do not have to take an all-or-nothing approach to integrity checking. Rather than block installation entirely, apps could call on the API only during sensitive actions, issuing a warning there. But not having a Play Store connection can also deprive developers of metrics, allow for installation on incompatible devices (and resulting bad reviews), and, of course, open the door to paid app piracy.

  • FireWire400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    They’re still pissed that people won’t put up with their shitty YouTube app and use Revanced instead, eh?

  • 5cr33ch3r@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    The only reason I’m still sticking with Android is the ability to sideload

    I have no reason to use an android if this is the road Google wants to follow and expect my next phone to be an iPhone SE

    • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Google and apple you can let us worry about our security ourselves, thank you, though I’m sure you have our best interests in mind and only that

    • sentientity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      I genuinely don’t even know where to buy an affordable device that is free from this kind of control. Some company always has outsized control (and in some cases arguably surveillance) over anything you can find on the market. It sucks so bad.

  • Unboxious@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    I use apps that aren’t available in my region for language study, so this could end up being a real problem for me.

  • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    App developers need ways to know the app has not been modified in unsanctioned manner, glad to see Android finally catching up on security with integrity checks.

    • androidisking@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Personally, it’s not Google’s place to dictate how an app verification ecosystem works. If a company has developed an app, they need to be the ones to make sure it’s secure in the first place, not trusting a monopolist tech company that has almost all control with how someone uses their phone.

      Google has rules yes, but Android is open-source and should be open with a free & open market for apps. After all, we paid for the device.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      No, this will only lead people without access to Google Play to be forced to get it from somebody who has modified the app to fake the check.

      • Chozo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        If they don’t have access to Play, then the developer of that app specifically does not want to service them as a user. Developers have to enable this feature in their own apps for it to do anything. If that developer wanted to support de-Googled users, they wouldn’t enable this in the first place.

  • Riley@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    If the Play Store becomes required like that then Android’s already-shaky status as an open source base platform is going to go out the window. I’m glad there are non-Google distros of Android but there really needs to be more of a push to make a completely FOSS phone platform.

    • IllNess@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      There are Linux phones available. I,m going to guess popularity of those devices to increase soon.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        Linux isn’t even popular on desktop. No way a mobile version becomes popular without some massive shifts in Linux ideology and culture.

      • Vik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        As much as I want that to be the case, I don’t think full mobile gnu+Linux is really ready to use daily?

        I haven’t exactly been keeping up with things, mind you

        • kspatlas@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          Just a note, one of if not the most popular mobile Linux distro is PostmarketOS, which is not GNU (it’s based on Alpine)

        • IllNess@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          Yes. I think a huge issue is Linux doesn’t handle other app activities like how Android’s Intent or Broadcast does.

      • MrLLM@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        I,m going to guess popularity of those devices to increase soon.

        I don’t want to be pessimistic about it, however I think it’s gonna be like Windows: enshittification will happen, but inconvenience is “too small” for people that they’ll rather check for a workaround than leave the platform.

        My guess is that we need something more appealing like the Steam Deck to make people take the step.

        • IllNess@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          My guess is that we need something more appealing like the Steam Deck to make people take the step.

          Hear me out! The Steam Phone®!

          • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 days ago

            Steam’s UI is tolerable, but inconsistent. In a SteamDeck, OK, but in a phone? Idk.

            I get that this isn’t meant that seriously.

        • vividspecter@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          I’d be happy with 2010 era desktop Linux level of support. It doesn’t need to get everybody to switch, just needs to be good enough for my needs.

      • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        Sadly the only people who would switch over to an actual Linux phone would be the people like the stereotypical Linux using Lemmy user. The average android user would just continue on like nothing happened because they’re not tech literate enough to know what’s going on or why they should care.

      • XTL@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        There aren’t, really. There are a few antiques and half baked things.

        A big problem is that these days, unless you’re the size of Apple or Samsung, it’s impossible to get a reasonable hardware soc and modem other than one which only runs a soon obsolete blob laden android which is going to be EOL before you’ve even finished your design.

        The hardware is not there. The firmware/hw data/platform isn’t there even to begin OS work with. And there’s a global shipping, regulation and mobile operator hell waiting on the other side. And a product lifecycle that’s only a few years long.

        Yes, I’ve worked for phone manufacturers.

    • whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      The more I think about it, this may finally convince me to…shudders…switch to an iPhone. I’ve always stayed on Android because despite the recent Google bullshit, it still for the most part lets me do whatever. Side-loading apks is a huge part of that.

      If it’s turning into a shittier iOS clone, what’s the point?

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        Don’t do IOS, it’s such a pain. It took us 2 days to figure out how to play an audio book file that I was able to download an F-droid app for and play in like 3 minutes.

        • whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Yup that sounds about right for iOS.

          Meant more that if Android ends up in the same boat (and by the looks of it, that’s exactly what Google and Samsung want), then iOS starts to look viable because the situation becomes: all the same bullshit but iOS is polished to a shine.

          Don’t plan on switching phones until my less than year old Note 9 kicks the bucket 😅

    • FangedWyvern42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      There are Linux mobile operating systems like PostmarketOS, but they are too early in development to be used by most people.

  • odelik@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    This seems like a brilliant feature to roll out as they’re getting investigated by the DOJ for being a monopoly.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      This has almost nothing to do with Google, it’s a feature that has to be enabled by the app developer. Meaning they want to exclude users getting the APK for their app from elsewhere.

    • philodendron@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      I unironically think so. It offloads the blame onto individual app developers. Google can turn around and say oh well it’s what the market wants

  • 0x0@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    So the EU’s been forcing Apple to allow sideloading and Google goes Nah, it’ll be fine?

    • bitfucker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Ehh, this is basically just another form of DRM. No different than you having a Steam and GOG model. You can make your apps using DRM and enforce certain constraints

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        GOG model

        wut? The main selling point of GOG is that games purchased from them are DRM-free.

      • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        DRM is to prevent piracy. This does not prevent piracy unless it only applies to apps that cost money.

        • TheChargedCreeper864@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          There already exists a “Google Play licence check” permission apps can use to verify whether or not the app has been bought on a Google account that’s present on the device.

          If people can crack the app to remove this (which is a thing for some of the popular apps), they’ll also figure out how to patch this out. This is strictly useful for free apps, and only serves to make it unviable to distribute verifiably clean apk’s outside of Google Play (so rip APKMirror)

          • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            Yup. This isn’t an anti-piracy thing, it’s a fuck-over-people-who-don’t-like-google thing.

        • bitfucker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          What I mean by that is, this is just an API/SDK for app developers to use. Google does not enforce the use of such things. Much like steam does not force the use of their drm for example (please note the difference between the marketplace and the drm). App developers can always choose how they make and distribute their app.

          • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            What legitimate reason would an app developer have for not wanting to let people install their app from sources other than the play store?

            • bitfucker@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 days ago

              Enforcing payment comes to mind without resorting to in-app purchase or any account creation. A lot of desktop software is a good example of those. Sure, you can still have cracks and whatnot, but then again, that’s not the point. Might as well ask what is the point of Denuvo. That is a whole other discussion.

              • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 days ago

                That’s a very legitimate reason! I was talking about free apps, but I failed to mention that in my comment. My bad. Any legit reason for free apps?

                • bitfucker@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  Nothing comes to mind. DRM literally means digital rights management and unless you wanted to be petty, like blocking a certain person from using your app, then DRM for something free is not something that I can think of a use case for.