Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #150320 > unrolled thread

Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-26 03:32 +0000
    Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-08-26 05:55 +0000
      Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-26 07:11 +0000
        Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-08-26 09:03 -0700
          Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-09-01 02:07 +0000
            Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-08-31 22:11 -0700
    Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Gabriel Coan <rockettaco37@rt37.nu> - 2025-08-31 14:44 -0400
      Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-08-31 22:35 +0200
        Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Gabriel Coan <rockettaco37@rt37.nu> - 2025-08-31 21:00 -0400
          Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-01 06:13 +0000
            Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Gabriel Coan <rockettaco37@rt37.nu> - 2025-09-01 03:59 -0400
              Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-01 08:28 -0700
                Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-09-01 17:47 +0200
                  Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-01 10:22 -0700
                    Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-09-01 20:17 +0200
                    Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Gabriel Coan <rockettaco37@rt37.nu> - 2025-09-02 18:27 -0400
                      Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-09-02 22:37 +0000
                      Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-02 17:53 -0700
                        Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-09-03 05:39 +0000
                          Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-03 00:05 -0700
                            Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-09-03 16:18 +0000
                              Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-03 11:37 -0700
                                Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-09-03 21:02 +0000
                                  Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-03 15:36 -0700
                                    Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-09-04 15:17 +0000
                                      Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-09-05 01:06 +0000
                        Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-09-03 08:23 +0200
                          Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-03 00:05 -0700
                            Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-09-03 10:23 +0200
                              Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-03 08:21 -0700
                                Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-09-03 18:33 +0200
                                  Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-03 11:37 -0700
                                    Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-09-03 22:18 +0200
                                      Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-03 15:36 -0700
                                        Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-09-04 08:06 +0200
                                          Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-04 07:17 +0000
                                            Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-09-04 09:31 +0200
                                              Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-04 09:17 -0700
                          Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-09-03 21:10 +0100
                            Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-03 15:36 -0700
                              Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-09-04 12:25 +0200
                                Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-04 09:17 -0700
                                  Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-09-04 18:27 +0200
                                    Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-04 17:33 +0000
                              Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-09-04 12:12 +0100
                                Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-04 09:17 -0700
                                  Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-09-05 01:20 +0000
                                  Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-09-05 08:40 +0100
                                    Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-05 09:47 -0700
                                    Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-09-05 16:57 +0000
                                      Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Qihe <Q@invalid.invalid> - 2025-11-15 18:12 +0100
                            Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Gabriel Coan <rockettaco37@rt37.nu> - 2025-09-05 19:08 -0400
                              Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-09-06 01:14 +0000
                                Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Gabriel Coan <rockettaco37@rt37.nu> - 2025-09-06 20:59 -0400
                          Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Gabriel Coan <rockettaco37@rt37.nu> - 2025-09-05 19:05 -0400
                            Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-06 00:28 +0000
                              Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-09-06 01:22 +0000
                                Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-05 20:16 -0700
                                  Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-09-06 18:04 +0000
      Re: Google getting more and more like iOS in term of lost functionality AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-01 01:33 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#150395

On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 00:05:19 -0700, AJL wrote :


>> Personally, I don't see malware as a problem on Android any more than
>> it's a problem on any other operating system,
> 
> Google apparently thinks so: "Google's March 2025 security bulletin has
> uncovered 43 vulnerabilities within Android's code. Security researchers
> at the tech giant identified 11 high-severity flaws and 10 critical
> vulnerabilities among these issues."
> 
> <https://www.talkandroid.com/503852>

I am a well educated scientist & engineer (degreed in both fields).
I'm therefore well aware of "statistics" & what Mark Twain said about 'em.

There's tons of Android malware. Of that I would agree a priori.
Without even bothering to check the statistics.

But out of a billion apps, you can have thousands that only three people
downloaded & yet that would show up in some of these statistics which.

Personally, I can't even conceive of a situation where "I" would download
and install malware; but I'm not saying that it couldn't happen.

I'm just thinkin' you'd have to be incredibly stupid to install malware.
And people that incredibly stupid can't be protected anyway.

Worse, those incredibly stupid people end up making it worse for all of us.

If we simply wiped out the lower-IQ-half of Android owners, that would
solve this problem of people installing obvious malware in an instant.

>> including Windows, Linux & iOS.
> 
> Dunno about Linux or Apple but this Windows laptop I'm posting with gets
> security updates on average several time a week. So MS must also think
> there's security dangers out there.

I have a thread on the Windows newsgroup from about a month or so ago which
asks if anyone has gotten malware in the past decade or so on Windows.

Nobody has. We used to get malware. Now we don't.
What changed?

Microsoft took it seriously by updating the operating system & AV program.
That's really where the solution lies.

It's in Microsoft taking control of their operating system.
It's not in MS taking control of every developer of Windows programs.

Google should take malware seriously without taking control of developers.
 
> 
>> There are ways to combat malware that don't include forcing every
>> app developer to be known to Google in intimate ways that Google
>> doesn't need.
> 
> Could be. But the question was does it increase security and I think
> that it probably does.

Wiping out the lower-IQ half of Android owners also increases security.

> BTW If you read the news Google came close to be broken up as a monopoly
> by the US government. You can always hope...  ;)

I read the headlines every day so I saw plenty of headlines yesterday about
the search engine results have to be opened up to competitive usage.

I'm all for that. I thought StartPage already used Google search results.
Since you brought it up, I just looked it up, and found this:
a. Google must share parts of its search index and user interaction
   data with qualified competitors
b. Google is barred from exclusive contracts that make its search
   engine the default on devices
c. But Google can still pay companies like Apple to feature Google 
   Search so those multi-billion dollar deals remain intact

Apparently the rise of generative AI (like ChatGPT and Perplexity)
influenced Judge Amit Mehta's decision.

>>> Since over 99% (guess) of all Android users don't sideload, I
>>> doubt Google will see that much if any extra profit from the move.
> 
>> Good point. I'd bet something like 95% of my thousand apps are not
>> sideloaded too.
> 
> On my non-Google Android tablet (Fire HD10) about half the apps are
> sideloaded. On my Google Android tablets just a few are sideloaded and
> of course my Chrome OS devices have no sideloaded apps.

I only sideload what everyone sideloads, most of which are apps which
directly replace a Google app such as NewPipe <--> YouTube.

There's already a thread on that, where I sideload FairEmail, Bromite,
Aurora, etc., each of which directly competed with the Google product.

I also sideload the phenomenally efficient apps such as Muntashirakon &
Skyica & NetGuard which Google would never allow in the GPS repository.

Then there are the free versions of the payware apps that I sideload, such
as OSMAnd~ and there are last known good versions (such as Nova & Pulse).

Since I automatically maintain an archive of the installed APKs, there's no
need for me to look up the last known good version as it's always there.

Obviously I don't have automatic update set for any app, but rest assured,
I tested all of them (which don't work the way most people think they do).

>> So why is Google really doing it then?
> 
> My guess is to plug ALL security holes. That extra 5% now being forced
> to the Play Store can't be that much of a profit gain, but who knows...

Well. Maybe. The news articles I read said it was about Apple-like control.
 
>> I've never once bought an iOS or Android app in my entire life. But
>> you knew that. :)
> 
> I spent 2 bucks for my Android newsreader PhoNews a few years back. I
> still use my Groundhog app for reading but the transmit function broke
> back around Android 9.

Yeah. I tested the Android newsreader apps. All of them that were free.
None worked well. I gave up. It's one functionality that doesn't exist.

Luckily, my newsreader works ok as it's just a bunch of telnet scripts
tied to the gVim editor on Windows - which works well enough for me.

>> But I'm intelligent. Most people are incredibly stupid. They buy
>> things that they don't even know are actually better for free.
> 
> So what free GOOD Android newsreader do you suggest?

See above. On Android, I have a URL bookmark to the archives, but those
archives stopped being updated in February of 2024 so I have *plenty* of
threads on the nntp & peering newsgroups asking for better web archives.

In fact, believe it or not, even for the Google URLs below, I've had a hand
in the creation and or maintenance and/or demise of each of these below:
 <https://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android>
 <https://tinyurl.com/nova-comp-mobile-android>
 <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.mobile.android
 <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
 <https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/>
 <https://www.novabbs.com/tech/thread.php?group=comp.mobile.android>
 <https://newsgrouper.org/comp.mobile.android>
 <https://i2pn2.pugleaf.net/groups/comp.mobile.android>
 etc.

But I'm not normal. I'm different than likely 99% of Usenet participants.
I strive like the dickens to get those archives built & maintained.

>> There's a big difference there.
> 
> I don't mind paying the developer for a good app. I can easily afford
> it. It's like buying a good book. With you though I'm guessing it's
> principle, not financial?

I have an entire thread on the freeware newsgroup this week debunking what
you just said - where those on that freeware group agree with me - not you.

It's not about money. It's like saying you can have good kids because you
can afford to pay your kids to go to the best schools in the country.

It's not about cost. It's about privacy.
The instant you pay a single cent for an app, your privacy is toast.

My phone is set up to be incapable of paying for anything. Ever.
And that alone protects my privacy (from accidental spills for example).

>>> I still don't see anything dishonest. They are apparently being up
>>> front with all the coming changes.
> 
>> Well, they're saying they're doing it for "security", aren't they?
>> The real reason is control.
> 
> Could be both. But neither of us knows for sure...

Prolly' is both.

My main beef is that I can't build from source where, I won't say that I do
it often but I just wrote a tutorial on how to build an APK from source.

That tutorial will be toast when this Draconian measure goes into effect.
I'd rather they just wiped off the lower-half-IQ set of Android owners. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150399

On 9/3/2025 9:18 AM, Marion wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 00:05:19 -0700, AJL wrote :

> There's tons of Android malware. Of that I would agree a priori.
> Without even bothering to check the statistics.

And some of it comes from the Play Store.

> Personally, I can't even conceive of a situation where "I" would
> download and install malware; but I'm not saying that it couldn't
> happen.

Me neither. But most of my apps come from the Play Store...  8-O

> I'm just thinkin' you'd have to be incredibly stupid to install
> malware.

Most people don't intentionally install Android malware cause it hides
disguised as a functioning app that entices them to download it.

> I have a thread on the Windows newsgroup from about a month or so
> ago which asks if anyone has gotten malware in the past decade or so
> on Windows. Nobody has. We used to get malware. Now we don't. What
> changed?

I'm not aware of any malware that I've ever gotten. But then I've never
been in a freeway crash either so I still try to be careful in both cases...

> Microsoft took it seriously by updating the operating system & AV
> program. That's really where the solution lies. It's in Microsoft
> taking control of their operating system.

I wonder how many apps in the Microsoft Store contain malware?

> It's not in MS taking control of every developer of Windows
> programs.

There would be less security allowing ANY app found on ANY website to be
downloaded and run. HOPEFULLY Windows can catch the bad ones.

> Google should take malware seriously without taking control of
> developers.

Different companies treat security in different ways.

> I only sideload what everyone sideloads, most of which are apps which
> directly replace a Google app such as NewPipe <--> YouTube.

I mostly sideload older app versions to run on my older vintage tablets.
And of course I sideloaded Google on my Amazon tablets.

> Obviously I don't have automatic update set for any app, but rest
> assured, I tested all of them (which don't work the way most people
> think they do).

No auto-update set on my stuff either.

>> what free GOOD Android newsreader do you suggest?

> Yeah. I tested the Android newsreader apps. All of them that were
> free. None worked well. I gave up. It's one functionality that
> doesn't exist.

Yup. I get the same answer every time I ask.

>> I don't mind paying the developer for a good app. I can easily
>> afford it. It's like buying a good book.

> I have an entire thread on the freeware newsgroup this week
> debunking what you just said - where those on that freeware group
> agree with me - not you.

I would expect nothing else from a FREEware group.

> It's not about money. It's like saying you can have good kids
> because you can afford to pay your kids to go to the best schools in
> the country.

Paying for a $5 or $10 for an app hardly compares so sending your kid to
a good $100,000 school.

> It's not about cost. It's about privacy. The instant you pay a
> single cent for an app, your privacy is toast.

As I pointed out earlier unless you live in a cave your online privacy
is pretty much toast anyway. Especially in your doctor's officewhere the
staff jokes about your constipation problems...  ;)

> My main beef is that I can't build from source where, I won't say
> that I do it often but I just wrote a tutorial on how to build an
> APK from source. That tutorial will be toast when this Draconian
> measure goes into effect.

The malware writers are likely pissed also...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150404

On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 11:37:15 -0700, AJL wrote :


>> I'm just thinkin' you'd have to be incredibly stupid to install
>> malware.
> 
> Most people don't intentionally install Android malware cause it hides
> disguised as a functioning app that entices them to download it.

Yes. But. Malware often "smells" bad. Dunno though. It could be that
NewPipe & Aurora & FairEmail, etc., are malware but if I'm fooled by those
well-known apps, then I would be in good company of others fooled also.

>> I have a thread on the Windows newsgroup from about a month or so
>> ago which asks if anyone has gotten malware in the past decade or so
>> on Windows. Nobody has. We used to get malware. Now we don't. What
>> changed?
> 
> I'm not aware of any malware that I've ever gotten. But then I've never
> been in a freeway crash either so I still try to be careful in both cases.

Yes. I am not aware of any malware I've gotten either. Every time there's
clickbait about named malware, I check & only three people installed it.

For some strange reason, I haven't been one of those three people yet.

>> Microsoft took it seriously by updating the operating system & AV
>> program. That's really where the solution lies. It's in Microsoft
>> taking control of their operating system.
> 
> I wonder how many apps in the Microsoft Store contain malware?

I don't have a Microsoft Account so in general, I can't even use the
Microsoft Store, but most people on Windows don't use it, I think.

>> It's not in MS taking control of every developer of Windows
>> programs.
> 
> There would be less security allowing ANY app found on ANY website to be
> downloaded and run. HOPEFULLY Windows can catch the bad ones.

As I said, none of us have run into malware on Windows in many many years.

>> Google should take malware seriously without taking control of
>> developers.
> 
> Different companies treat security in different ways.

I don't think it's about security. I think it's about control.
 
>> I only sideload what everyone sideloads, most of which are apps which
>> directly replace a Google app such as NewPipe <--> YouTube.
> 
> I mostly sideload older app versions to run on my older vintage tablets.
> And of course I sideloaded Google on my Amazon tablets.

Personally, I hate the word "sideload" because it's the normal way to
install software. It's mainly Apple who made sideloading an evil term.

>> Obviously I don't have automatic update set for any app, but rest
>> assured, I tested all of them (which don't work the way most people
>> think they do).
> 
> No auto-update set on my stuff either.

Yup. Rarely, if ever, do we need an app to constantly update itself.
I'm still using the last known good version of PulseSMS and it works fine.
  <https://tinyurl.com/pulsesms>

And I'm still using the last known good version of Tesla's Nova launcher:
  <https://tinyurl.com/nova-launcher>

Although, NewPipe, for example, is broken by Google every once in a while.
 <https://newpipe.net>

But then, in about a week or so, they re-write the open source code.
And Google takes about a year or so to think about breaking it again.

>>> what free GOOD Android newsreader do you suggest?
> 
>> Yeah. I tested the Android newsreader apps. All of them that were
>> free. None worked well. I gave up. It's one functionality that
>> doesn't exist.
> 
> Yup. I get the same answer every time I ask.

Doesn't really exist on iOS either, although they have "NewsTap" to do it.
 
>>> I don't mind paying the developer for a good app. I can easily
>>> afford it. It's like buying a good book.
> 
>> I have an entire thread on the freeware newsgroup this week
>> debunking what you just said - where those on that freeware group
>> agree with me - not you.
> 
> I would expect nothing else from a FREEware group.

Yeah, the thread is intended for discussion about freeware & privacy.

 From: Marion <marion@facts.com>
 Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware,alt.privacy
 Subject: If it's freeware, you are the product - you get what you pay for
 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 15:04:37 -0000 (UTC)
 Message-ID: <1094cm4$2e1l$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

>> It's not about money. It's like saying you can have good kids
>> because you can afford to pay your kids to go to the best schools in
>> the country.
> 
> Paying for a $5 or $10 for an app hardly compares so sending your kid to
> a good $100,000 school.

The point was that paying for an app doesn't get you a better app.
Do you know of a better app, for example, than IrfanView or VLC?

There's a thread on Windows about the Paint.NET alternative to PhotoShop:
 From: Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl>
 Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11
 Subject: OT: Replacement for Adobe Photoshop
 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 14:47:41 +0200
 Message-ID: <mhqrndFco8eU1@mid.individual.net>

>> It's not about cost. It's about privacy. The instant you pay a
>> single cent for an app, your privacy is toast.
> 
> As I pointed out earlier unless you live in a cave your online privacy
> is pretty much toast anyway. Especially in your doctor's officewhere the
> staff jokes about your constipation problems...  ;)

I disagree with you. What you say is no different than a slave saying
unless you live in a cave your freedom is toast anyway. It's not true.

Those who say that, are always people who don't understand privacy.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying that you can easily obtain Osama bin Laden
privacy while hiding from a dozen TLAs seeking to kill you, but there is a
thread on the Windows newsgroup where Google has no idea who I am.
 From: Marion <marion@facts.com>
 alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.comp.microsoft.windows
 Subject: Tutorial: 
 DIY build your own lightweight chromium-based privacy web browser
 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 02:25:51 -0000 (UTC)
 Message-ID: <1069bff$24ia$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

Every time I connect to YouTube, Google sees me for the very first time.

>> My main beef is that I can't build from source where, I won't say
>> that I do it often but I just wrote a tutorial on how to build an
>> APK from source. That tutorial will be toast when this Draconian
>> measure goes into effect.
> 
> The malware writers are likely pissed also...

All three of them. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150407

On 9/3/2025 2:02 PM, Marion wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 11:37:15 -0700, AJL wrote :

>> I wonder how many apps in the Microsoft Store contain malware?

> I don't have a Microsoft Account so in general, I can't even use the
> Microsoft Store, but most people on Windows don't use it, I think.

I have a MS account in my fake name. The initials are AJL (don't tell
MS). I've gotten a few apps there. They had to be free with no CC on file.

> I don't think it's about security. I think it's about control.

For the small % involved I vote security. But I repeat, neither of us
knows for sure, and we both may be right...

> Personally, I hate the word "sideload" because it's the normal way
> to install software. It's mainly Apple who made sideloading an evil
> term.

I think the normal way for most folks to install software is from the
stores. But some of us do load some from the side. Sideload?? A word is
born...

> But then, in about a week or so, they re-write the open source code.
> And Google takes about a year or so to think about breaking it
> again.

Us non-techies (did we agree on 95% of users?) could care less...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150415

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 9/3/2025 2:02 PM, Marion wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 11:37:15 -0700, AJL wrote :
> 
> >> I wonder how many apps in the Microsoft Store contain malware?
> 
> > I don't have a Microsoft Account so in general, I can't even use the
> > Microsoft Store, but most people on Windows don't use it, I think.
> 
> I have a MS account in my fake name. The initials are AJL (don't tell
> MS). I've gotten a few apps there. They had to be free with no CC on file.

  Note that for many (most? all?) 'free'/no-cost Microsoft Store apps,
you don't need a Microsoft account. I don't use a Microsoft Account, but
still have a few Microsoft Store apps (for example WhatsApp).

  So Arlen's statement

[Rewind/repeat:]
> > I don't have a Microsoft Account so in general, I can't even use the
> > Microsoft Store,

is not quite correct, especially as he's opposed to using non-free
software.

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150422

On 4 Sep 2025 15:17:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote :


>>> I don't have a Microsoft Account so in general, I can't even use the
>>> Microsoft Store,
> 
> is not quite correct, especially as he's opposed to using non-free
> software.

It's interesting how each of the major OS players (i.e., Apple, Microsoft &
Google) have been copying Apple's strategy of profit by control over apps.

What started as a wild west of software distribution has slowly morphed
into gated communities with toll booths at every turn. Apple pioneered the
barbed-wire walled-off prison garden, and now Microsoft and Google are
copying Apple by tending their own hedges with increasing prison zeal.

In the olden days, there was no MSA and there was no MS Store (that I'm
aware of); but now, increasingly, "stuff" is offered inside the MS Store,
and Google is copying Apple's barbed-wire prison-fence App-Store tactic.

Since I'm intelligent, I've almost never paid for any software in my life,
so I'm not really sure how Microsoft makes things available in their store.

I tried downloading Paint.NET freeware from the MS Store but it wouldn't
let me have it as the version on the MS Store is apparently not free.
 <https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9nbhcs1lx4r0?hl=en-us&gl=US> $15

Yet, if you know something about computers, you can legitimately get that
fantastic venerable PhotoShop replacement software for free, elsewhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150390

On 03.09.2025 02:53, AJL wrote:
> On 9/2/2025 3:27 PM, Gabriel Coan wrote:
>> On 9/1/25 1:22 PM, AJL wrote:
> 
>> The point I'm trying to make here is that Google is pretending that
>> blocking sideloading apps is "for the user's security". It's not.
> 
> Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
> increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public to
> download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.

The classic dilemma between freedom and security.
Personally I tend to favour freedom.

-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita" (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150392

On 9/2/2025 11:23 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 03.09.2025 02:53, AJL wrote:

>> Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
>> increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public
>> to download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.

> The classic dilemma between freedom and security. Personally I tend
> to favour freedom.

I prefer both.

Security for my moola (bank accounts, investment sites, credit card
sites, tax sites, etc.) which is of course my Chromebook.

Freedom for my other toys (like my Googleized Amazon tablets)...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150393

On 03.09.25 09:05, AJL wrote:
> On 9/2/2025 11:23 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 03.09.2025 02:53, AJL wrote:
> 
>>> Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
>>> increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public
>>> to download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.
> 
>> The classic dilemma between freedom and security. Personally I tend
>> to favour freedom.
> 
> I prefer both.
> 
> Security for my moola (bank accounts, investment sites, credit card
> sites, tax sites, etc.) which is of course my Chromebook.
> 
> Freedom for my other toys (like my Googleized Amazon tablets)...

I use secure by design FOSS. Chromebook is as insecure and violating
privacy as much as Windows. Not really an option for me.

There is a reason why Chromebooks are not very popular in Europe despite
the moderate prices.


-- 
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150394

On 9/3/2025 1:23 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 03.09.25 09:05, AJL wrote:

>> For security for my moola (bank accounts, investment sites, credit
>> card sites, tax sites, etc.) I use a Chromebook.

> I use secure by design FOSS.

> Chromebook is as insecure

This is a (gasp) Google AI answer. No link.

"Chromebooks are generally very secure, boasting built-in protections
like automatic updates, encryption, and a verified boot process, making
them more resistant to malware than many other operating systems.
However, they are not entirely immune, with threats still possible
through Android apps from the Google Play Store, and unsafe Chrome 
extensions."

Interesting how the insecurities of a Chromebook involve the ability to
run Play Store Android apps and Google extensions. But I find the risk
acceptable for the added capability.

> and violating privacy as much as Windows.

Shouldn't Android, powered by Google, also be listed here?

> Not really an option for me.

YMMV as it should.

> There is a reason why Chromebooks are not very popular in Europe
> despite the moderate prices.

Another Google AI answer. No link. I read that websites are complaining
that AI scraping is ruining their real human views and thus costing them
money. Guess this is a good example. Guilty...

Chromebooks are popular in Europe, especially in the education sector,
with Europe being the second-largest market for Chromebooks globally.
Key drivers of their popularity include their affordability, ease of
use, and suitability for cloud-based learning and remote work.
Government initiatives in countries like Italy have also boosted
adoption by supporting digital learning and supplying devices for students.
Factors Contributing to Chromebook Popularity in Europe
Education Sector Adoption:
Governments and educational institutions are investing in Chromebooks to
enhance digital learning infrastructure, making them a major force in
the European market.
Affordability:
Chromebooks are recognized for their cost-effectiveness compared to
other laptops, which appeals to budget-conscious students and institutions.
Cloud-Based Functionality:
Their simplicity, speed, and reliance on cloud-based services align well
with Europe's growing focus on digital transformation and remote work
solutions.
Government Initiatives:
Specific programs, such as Italy's National Recovery and Resilience Plan
(NRRP), have promoted the widespread use of Chromebooks in schools to
accelerate digital learning.
Market Growth and Outlook
The European Chromebook market is significant, holding a substantial
share of global revenue and showing continued growth.
This positive trend is supported by collaborations between Chromebook
manufacturers and local governments to promote and deploy these devices
in the education and business sectors.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150397

On 03.09.25 17:21, AJL wrote:
> On 9/3/2025 1:23 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 03.09.25 09:05, AJL wrote:
> 
>>> For security for my moola (bank accounts, investment sites, credit
>>> card sites, tax sites, etc.) I use a Chromebook.
> 
>> I use secure by design FOSS.
> 
>> Chromebook is as insecure
> 
> This is a (gasp) Google AI answer. No link.

A very bad allegation, dear.
>> There is a reason why Chromebooks are not very popular in Europe
>> despite the moderate prices.
> 
> Another Google AI answer. No link. I read that websites are complaining
> that AI scraping is ruining their real human views and thus costing them
> money. Guess this is a good example. Guilty...
> 
> Chromebooks are popular in Europe, especially in the education sector,

*ROTFLSTC*. Market share smaller than Linux.

A non-US AI (Mistral) says this:

"While Chromebooks have made significant inroads in education and 
budget-conscious markets, Windows remains the clear leader in Europe, 
with macOS holding the second position. Chromebooks are still a niche 
player compared to the dominance of Windows and macOS, but their market 
presence is growing, particularly in schools and corporate environments."

"Hier eine kurze Übersicht zur Marktverteilung in Europa (Stand 2025):

Windows dominiert den europäischen Desktop-Markt mit einem Anteil von 
etwa 70–75%, ähnlich wie im globalen Durchschnitt.
macOS (Apple) hält etwa 15–20% des Marktes, besonders stark in Ländern 
wie Deutschland, Frankreich und dem UK, wo Apple eine treue Nutzerbasis hat.
Chromebooks (ChromeOS) liegen in Europa bei etwa 2–5%, mit stärkerer 
Präsenz in Bildungseinrichtungen und bei preisbewussten Unternehmen. In 
einigen Ländern wie dem UK und den Niederlanden ist die Adoption dank 
staatlicher Initiativen etwas höheren.

Trends:

Chromebooks wachsen vor allem in Schulen und im öffentlichen Sektor, 
bleiben aber im Vergleich zu Windows und macOS ein Nischenprodukt.
Windows bleibt unangefochten führend, während macOS stabil bleibt und 
Chromebooks langsam, aber stetig Marktanteile gewinnen."

Chromebooks are completely insignificant in the European market.


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita" (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150398

Jörg Lorenz wrote:

> [Chromebook] Market share smaller than Linux.

Apple to oranges. Linux is an OS. A Chromebook is a laptop. So lets
compare laptops. My Amazon site currently shows 67 Linux laptops and
over a 1000 Chromebooks for sale...

> "While Chromebooks have made significant inroads in education and
> budget-conscious markets, Windows remains the clear leader in
> Europe, with macOS holding the second position.

Same in the US.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150403

On 03.09.2025 20:37, AJL wrote:
> A Chromebook is a laptop.

A Chromebook is defined hardware plus a very specific OS delivered by 
Google. The OS is relevant.

End of subthread for me.


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita" (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150405

On 9/3/2025 1:18 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 03.09.2025 20:37, AJL wrote:

>> A Chromebook is a laptop.

> A Chromebook is defined hardware plus a very specific OS delivered by
> Google. The OS is relevant.

And to confuse things more, many Chromebooks (including mine) can be
easily modified (with no mods to hardware or software) to run Linux apps
with apparently (gasp) Google's blessing...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150408

On 04.09.2025 00:36, AJL wrote:
> On 9/3/2025 1:18 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 03.09.2025 20:37, AJL wrote:
> 
>>> A Chromebook is a laptop.
> 
>> A Chromebook is defined hardware plus a very specific OS delivered by
>> Google. The OS is relevant.
> 
> And to confuse things more, many Chromebooks (including mine) can be
> easily modified (with no mods to hardware or software) to run Linux apps
> with apparently (gasp) Google's blessing...

To make things even more obscure: Chromebook-OS can be installed on 
almost every desktop computer/laptop.

-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita" (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150409

On 9/3/25 11:06 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>On 04.09.2025 00:36, AJL wrote:
>> On 9/3/2025 1:18 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 03.09.2025 20:37, AJL wrote:
>> 
>>>> A Chromebook is a laptop.
>> 
>>> A Chromebook is defined hardware plus a very specific OS delivered by
>>> Google. The OS is relevant.
>> 
>> And to confuse things more, many Chromebooks (including mine) can be
>> easily modified (with no mods to hardware or software) to run Linux apps
>> with apparently (gasp) Google's blessing...
>
>To make things even more obscure: Chromebook-OS can be installed on 
>almost every desktop computer/laptop.

That would be the Flex version not the Chromebook version.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150410

On 04.09.2025 09:17, AJL wrote:
> On 9/3/25 11:06 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 04.09.2025 00:36, AJL wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2025 1:18 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> On 03.09.2025 20:37, AJL wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A Chromebook is a laptop.
>>>
>>>> A Chromebook is defined hardware plus a very specific OS delivered by
>>>> Google. The OS is relevant.
>>>
>>> And to confuse things more, many Chromebooks (including mine) can be
>>> easily modified (with no mods to hardware or software) to run Linux apps
>>> with apparently (gasp) Google's blessing...
>>
>> To make things even more obscure: Chromebook-OS can be installed on
>> almost every desktop computer/laptop.
> 
> That would be the Flex version not the Chromebook version.

WTF cares? The outlook for this privacy nightmare is very dire.
Google is evil.

-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita" (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150419

On 9/4/2025 12:31 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 04.09.2025 09:17, AJL wrote:
>> On 9/3/25 11:06 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:

>>> To make things even more obscure: Chromebook-OS can be installed
>>> on almost every desktop computer/laptop.

>> That would be the Flex version not the Chromebook version.

> WTF cares?

Just adding more details to the subject you brought up.

> The outlook for this privacy nightmare is very dire.

Unless you live in a cave your whole life is online in various servers
and most likely available to more humans than Google's servers...

> Google is evil.

Actually the world is evil. I made a good living fighting evil in my
city for 25 years and got to retire at age 50. Evil is good...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150402

Jörg Lorenz wrote:

> AJL wrote:
>
>> Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
>> increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public to
>> download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.
> 
> The classic dilemma between freedom and security.
> Personally I tend to favour freedom.
Sideloading is off by default, I doubt most users even know it exists, 
let alone enable it, feels rather nannyish to block it entirely.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150406

On 9/3/2025 1:10 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> AJL wrote:

>> Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
>> increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public
>> to download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.

> Sideloading is off [on Pixel Android 16] by default, I doubt most
> users even know it exists, let alone enable it, feels rather
> nannyish to block it entirely.

Yep. My Chromebooks don't allow sideloading at all. Nanny Google is
protecting me from myself...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web