1184 points by 0xedb 3 days ago | 1252 comments | View on ycombinator
tavavex 3 days ago |
grishka 3 days ago |
Ruining Android for everyone to try to maybe help some rather technologically-hopeless groups of people is the wrong solution. It's unsustainable in the long run. Also, the last thing this world needs right now is even more centralization of power. Especially around yet another US company.
People who are unwilling to figure out the risks just should not use smartphones and the internet. They should not use internet banking. They should probably not have a bank account at all and just stick to cash. And the society should be able to accommodate such people — which is not that hard, really. Just roll back some of the so-called innovations that happened over the last 15 years. Whether someone uses technology, and how much they do, should be a choice, not a burden.
astra1701 3 days ago |
- Must enable developer mode -- some apps (e.g., banking apps) will refuse to operate and such when developer mode is on, and so if you depend on such apps, I guess you just can't sideload?
- One-day (day!!!) waiting period to activate (one-time) -- the vast majority of people who need to sideload something will probably not be willing to wait a day, and will thus just not sideload unless they really have no choice for what they need. This kills the pathway for new users to sideload apps that have similar functionality to those on the Play Store.
The rest -- restarting, confirming you aren't being coached, and per-install warnings -- would be just as effective alone to "protect users," but with those prior two points, it's clear that this is just simply intended to make sideloading so inconvenient that many won't bother or can't (dev mode req.).
ninjagoo 2 days ago |
[1] https://liberapay.com/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberapay [3] https://opencollective.com/ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Collective
If we start today, we could have a new phone in 2-3 years. Future generations will thank us.
It's not just phones. There is a concerted movement by massively-moneyed folks to destroy the fabric of open society, so there are a number of different areas that need attention. A coordinated effort across the breadth of society to restore, maintain or improve the foundations of open society.
janice1999 3 days ago |
bityard 3 days ago |
At least half of the apps I use on a daily basis come from f-droid. This enforced 24-hour wait is simply not acceptable. Android has always been a far inferior overall user experience compared to iPhone. Android's _only_ saving grace was that I could put my own third-party open-source apps on it. There is nothing left keeping me on Android now.
I'll probably get an iPhone next, but I do sincerely hope this hastens progress on a real "Linux phone" for the rest of us. Plasma Mobile (https://plasma-mobile.org) looks very nice indeed. I'll be more than happy to contribute to development and funding.
devsda 3 days ago |
It's not a win by any means. I hope that we don't stop making noise.
focusedone 3 days ago |
Most of the apps on my phone are installed from F-Droid. I guess the next time I get a new phone I'll have to wait at least 24 hours for it to become useful.
I'm seriously considering Graphene for a next personal device and whatever the cheapest iOS device is for work.
jeduardo 3 days ago |
I wonder how this will play out in the phones coming out of the Motorola+GrapheneOS partnership.
branon 3 days ago |
zx8080 3 days ago |
As for the IDs, I think what happens is that Google sees no need to have hobbyists anymore in the ecosystem. Companies are easier to deal with, easier to change ecosystem to what's needed for Google. While for app development companies, there will be a single enterprise account with some ID used for many developers. And companies just shut up and follow almost any non-financial requirements Google wants to add.
In contrast, opensource developers frequently go public advocating for user privacy and data prorection, while companies tend to be on the same side as Google squeezing any bit of personal user data to sell it for any margin possible.
Is any open mobile device and OS ecosystem possible at this point of time, other than the hobbyist one? With closed gates of LTE/5G ecosystem it seems there's no such possible at all.
kaufmann 3 days ago |
I really extremely rarely open the Play Store.
F-Droid is my place to. Even if the tools are simple, they are reliable.
Maybe Google is also scared, that with coding agents some OSS Tools improve that much that commercial alternatives don't matter.
anonym29 3 days ago |
Like when Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, et al. cooperated with¹ the unconstitutional and illegal² PRISM program to hand over bulk user data to the NSA without a warrant? That kind of harm to my personal data that I did not intend?
If so, I'd love to hear an explanation of why every Google/Alphabet, Facebook/Meta, and Microsoft application haven't been removed for being malware already.
¹ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants...
² https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/us-court-mass...
goodusername 3 days ago |
This will sadly still put a major damper on adoption of open source apps, while giving a false sense of security that apps from the Play store are safe.
Years down the road, the low usage of apps installed from outside the Play store will be used as an argument for removing the functionality completely.
chr15m 3 days ago |
iamcalledrob 3 days ago |
This is smart.
But putting my design hat on here: couldn't this be the whole approach? When enabling the "unverified apps" setting, the phone could terminate all running apps and calls before walking the user through the process.
Why do you even need the rest of the complexity -- if the fear is that non-savvy users are being coached into installing malware,then preventing comms while fiddling with the settings seems pretty OK?
You could even combine this with randomised UI, labels etc. so it's not possible to coach someone in advance about what to press.
teroshan 3 days ago |
Wondering how long the blogpost would be if it explained what the flow for corpoloading applications approved by Google's shareholders would be?
egorelik 3 days ago |
I understand there is some problem trying to be solved here, but honestly this is still quite frustrating for legitimate uses. If this is the direction that computing is moving, I'd really rather there were separate products available for power users/devs that reflected our different usage.
9cb14c1ec0 3 days ago |
macinjosh 3 days ago |
Apple and Google can now credibly claim to governments to have nearly ubiquitous computing platforms that they can guarantee do not run any software that is not approved or antithetical to the goals of authorities. This makes the device safe for storing things like government IDs. OSs and Browsers will be required to present these IDs or at first just attest to them.
Before posting online, renting a server, using an app you will have to idenitfy yourself using your phone or similarly locked down PC (i.e. mac).
The introduction is under the guise as always of protecting the children. In reality they are removing your rights to privacy and free speech.
summermusic 3 days ago |
hilbert42 3 days ago |
Even before Google's edict I disabled enforced Android updates in case that at Google's demand manufacturers slipstreamed some restrictive code that cannot be later removed. One only has to look at the disastrous precedent with Windows 11 to see how insidious and ever-increasing lock-in works.
Fact is Big Tech cannot be trusted and there's a long lineage to prove it—MS Windows, Sun/OpenOffice and many others—and now Android. To avoid future calamities like this and to ensure survival of F-Droid, et al we urgently need to break Big Tech's nexus with open source independent of Big Tech's control.
I can only hope more manufacturers are prepared to fork Android to cater for the upcoming demand.
sunaookami 3 days ago |
nullc 3 days ago |
More people moving to GrapheneOS is the best tool we have against Google's continued and escalating hostility to user freedom and privacy and general anti-competitive conduct. (Of course, you could ditch having a smartphone entirely..., but if you're willing to consider that you don't need me plugging an alternative).
dzogchen 3 days ago |
I will die on this hill.
mrmckizzle 3 days ago |
xp84 3 days ago |
I wanted to be negative about the whole idea, as due to my age I'm resentful of not being allowed to use my own computer as I see fit.
On the other hand, in principle I see what they're going for here. The only decent argument for these user-hostile lockdowns is the malware issue.
crvdgc 2 days ago |
Even if that's not the case, I'd imagine attestation apps like banking apps would require some kind of identity verification in exchange for trusting Graphene's keys.
In principle it doesn't make sense to leave any escape hatch, but I guess as always, it boils down to economy.
jwr 2 days ago |
Oh, how times have changed. And so many believed this and repeated it.
Retr0id 3 days ago |
module1973 3 days ago |
gumby271 3 days ago |
I don't quite understand how those installs would be tracked. If I create a "hobbyist" account and share the apk, are the devices that install that app all reporting it to Google? To my knowledge, Google only does this through the optional Play Protect system, is that now no longer optional? I'd like to know if my computer is reporting every app I install up to Google.
medhir 3 days ago |
hansvm 2 days ago |
This still isn't a good idea. It's not going to materially improve security for anyone, so all the negatives (beaten to death here and elsewhere) are still top-of-mind.
arendtio 3 days ago |
When I side-load open-source apps for other people, I want to do it right in the moment, not activate the feature, and the next time I see them (like half a year later), install the app.
When Google announced there would be an alternative installation method, I did not expect such a mess...
aniviacat 3 days ago |
What stops scammers from simply creating a new hobbyist account for every 20 people they scam?
seu 2 days ago |
This is just spreading fear. If you're being coerced to do this, then you're in a much bigger danger than what a rogue application sideloaded to your phone represents.
monksy 3 days ago |
Companies get away from this because they distance themselves from their customers and they have systems to hide feedback.
pmdr 3 days ago |
No, I'm afraid this is tipping the scale of control in Google's favor.
AdmiralAsshat 3 days ago |
We know from Nigerian email scams that these things can stretch out days, weeks, months, all to get the victim to do the thing.
RobotToaster 3 days ago |
lucasay 3 days ago |
croemer 2 days ago |
As others have suggested, there should be an option skip the 24hr wait when activating at setup time. Or, alternatively, when the previous phone one is transferring from has it enabled it should be without wait time on the new one.
foxes 3 days ago |
Its just installing an app.
zmmmmm 3 days ago |
Because if that "enforcement" is Google then they are still engineering a situation where they hold the keys to the kingdom. They may benevolently let you install what you want, but the sword of damacles will hang over everyone forever, with the darth vader contract in full force ("pray we don't change the deal any further"). If nothing else, it will have a chilling effect. But more than likely, it will attract regulators like moths to a flame to coerce Google into banning their favorite open source apps that they don't like. In other words: it won't solve anything at all, really.
sokoloff 2 days ago |
What concrete change to the policy would be a strict Pareto improvement keeping just those two concerns in mind?
1970-01-01 2 days ago |
tadfisher 3 days ago |
I just remain skeptical that this tactic is successful on modern Android, with all the settings and scare screens you need to go through in order to sideload an app and grant dangerous permissions.
I expect scammers will move to pre-packaged software with a bundled ADB client for Windows/Mac, then the flow is "enable developer options" -> "enable usb debugging" -> "install malware and grant permissions with one click over ADB". People with laptops are more lucrative targets anyway.
modeless 3 days ago |
dang 3 days ago |
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...?
Edit: I've put one up there now - if there's a better article, let us know and we can change it again. I put the submitted URL in the toptext.
ptx 2 days ago |
Obviously permissions would be a problem, as you can't update the app manifest, so there would either have to be one shell app per publisher (which would at least solve the problem of installing updates for their apps) or the shell would need its own internal system for managing permissions (like a browser does). Maybe it could also sandbox different apps from each other in different subprocesses, unless that needs root privileges, but maybe it's possible with Landlock?
Or we can always fall back to the "sweet solution" Steve Jobs offered us with the original iPhone, and just let the web browser be the shell.
Or implement everything as WeChat mini programs.
nickorlow 2 days ago |
fdghrtbrt 3 days ago |
Just call it "installing".
beepbooptheory 3 days ago |
13415 3 days ago |
The security justification for this measure is not credible.
noisy_boy 2 days ago |
Gud 3 days ago |
Let’s be clear here.
smeggysmeg 2 days ago |
* confirm that you are not tricked
* restart phone and re-authenticate
* wait one day
* confirm with biometrics that you know what you are doing
* decide if you only want unrestricted installs for 1 week or forever
* confirm that you accept the risks
* enjoy the few apps that still have developers motivated to develop for a user-base willing to put up with this
RIMR 3 days ago |
Even though I understand the design decisions here, I think we're going about this the wrong way. Sure, users can be pressured into allowing unverified apps and installing malware, and adding a 24-hour delay will probably reduce the number of victims, but ultimately, the real solution here is user education, not technological guardrails.
If I want to completely nuke my phone with malware, Google shouldn't stand in my way. Why not just force me to read some sort of "If someone is rushing you to do this, it is probably an attack" message before letting me adjust this setting?
Anyone who ignores that warning is probably going to still fall for the scam. If anything, scammers will just communicate the new process, and it risks sounding even more legitimate if they have to go through more Google-centric steps.
mzajc 3 days ago |
- You need to enable developer mode
- You need to click through a few scare dialogs
- You need to wait 24h once
I wonder how long this will last before they lock it down further. There was a lot of pushback this time around and they still ended up increasing the temperature of the metaphorical boiling frog. It still seems like they're pushing towards the Apple model where those who don't want to self-dox and/or pay get a very limited key (what Google currently calls "limited distribution accounts").
nout 3 days ago |
aboringusername 3 days ago |
I suspect they are hoping users just give up and go to the play store instead. Google touts about "Play Protect" which scans all apps on the device, even those from unknown sources so these measures can barely be justified.
Imagine if Microsoft said you need to wait 24 hours before installing a program not from their store, which is against the entire premise of windows.
Computing, I once believed was based on an open idea that people made software and you could install it freely, yes there are bad actors, but that's why we had antivirus and other protection methods, now we're inch by inch losing those freedoms. iOS wants you to enter your date of birth now.
The future feels very uncertain, but we need to protect the little freedoms we have left, once they're gone, they're gone for good.
aerzen 1 day ago |
Or maybe it is and android's promises about openness are dead.
capital_guy 2 days ago |
Andrex 3 days ago |
It's time to leave Android.
Call me naive, but despite the feeling in my gut I was holding out for Google's answer. Reading what it is, this is still going way too far. You essentially need to be a developer in order to sideload, which brings Android down to parity with iOS.
No, being able to sideload (on my phones, AND friends and family as-needed) is a fundamental computing right. This is my personal belief. And this move by Google is a step too far.
The search begins...
contingencies 2 days ago |
Is it really worth executing payments, maps, geospatial APIs, etc. on one platform if >30% of your customer base can't use it and it changes every 6 months (because that's what they've engineered)? No. Who wants to maintain that?
Then what is the interface people are pushed to? The browser, where Google historically dominates.
notrealyme123 3 days ago |
ddxv 3 days ago |
widowlark 3 days ago |
kelvinjps10 3 days ago |
tsoukase 2 days ago |
glenstein 2 days ago |
Do I love it? Absolutely not. But F-Droid was facing an existential threat from the early early versions of the proposal and now will continue to live. Again, I don't love it but this is a huge change to the fate of F-Droid.
jleask 2 days ago |
BrandoElFollito 1 day ago |
Being treated as a toddler by an organization that is itself completely disfunctional is mzking me angry.
ForHackernews 3 days ago |
If you can enable this once, forever, after a 24 hour cooldown period I don't hate this as much as I hated some of the other proposals from Google. It'll just be something you do as part of the setup for a new phone.
undefined 2 days ago |
evolighting 3 days ago |
The reality is that users should take responsibility but are not allowed to, so Google takes over and makes a profit.
You don't need a CS degree to use a phone, but you can be a power user by time....but not anymore, the company needs you to stay fool and pay for "help" (not directly sometime).
This is a marketing tactic, similar to a side-load.
kogasa240p 3 days ago |
occz 3 days ago |
garciansmith 3 days ago |
Alternatives like GrapheneOS and Lineage are the way to go for right now, but I worry as things get more and more locked down that those options won't work with a lot of apps.
aftergibson 3 days ago |
linuxhansl 3 days ago |
Again, can we, please, stop call it side-loading. I'm not sliding in anything "from the side" on the sly, I am simply installing an app of my choice on my damn phone.
benatkin 3 days ago |
shevy-java 3 days ago |
leke 3 days ago |
quyleanh 3 days ago |
How the advanced flow works for users
Enable developer mode in system settings: Activating this is simple. This prevents accidental triggers or "one-tap" bypasses often used in high-pressure scams.
Confirm you aren't being coached: There is a quick check to make sure that no one is talking you into turning off your security. While power users know how to vet apps, scammers often pressure victims into disabling protections.
Restart your phone and reauthenticate: This cuts off any remote access or active phone calls a scammer might be using to watch what you’re doing.
Come back after the protective waiting period and verify: There is a one-time, one-day wait and then you can confirm that this is really you who’s making this change with our biometric authentication (fingerprint or face unlock) or device PIN. Scammers rely on manufactured urgency, so this breaks their spell and gives you time to think.
Install apps: Once you confirm you understand the risks, you’re all set to install apps from unverified developers, with the option of enabling for 7 days or indefinitely. For safety, you’ll still see a warning that the app is from an unverified developer, but you can just tap “Install Anyway.”TGower 3 days ago |
wisenet 2 days ago |
copirate 3 days ago |
wolvoleo 3 days ago |
I don't have a Google account on my Androids. But I can't remove play services on them, sadly. As an intermediate protection I just don't sign in to Google play, that gives them at least a bit less identifying information to play with.
I hope this can be done without a Google account.
zb3 3 days ago |
gib444 2 days ago |
- New toaster requires permission from manufacturer to toast bread from a local bakery.
- Car manufacturer to vet all passengers. Any unidentified and unvetted passengers will disable the vehicle.
- TV manufacturer requires 7 days advance notice of what you want to watch.
marssaxman 2 days ago |
The fact that I can sideload whatever I need and stay out of Google's ecosystem is the whole reason I use Android. Given the miserable choice between two fully locked-down platforms, why would I pick theirs?
GeekyBear 3 days ago |
Google's decision to walk back the supposed freedom to run anything you like removes user choice from the marketplace and harms consumers.
fredgrott 2 days ago |
Google could make a mobile website to take an app apk and verify it if its secure and offer to install it back to android users ...
My bias, former Android app developer.
This is using the increase in attacks to do a business monopoly goal instead...
odo1242 3 days ago |
cobbal 3 days ago |
basilikum 3 days ago |
This is exactly what Google intended. This is why they started off by announcing completely removing device owner chosen installs (this is not side loading! It's simply installing.) and announced only apps allowed by Google would be available for install.
They knew it would cause backlash. They anticipated that and planned ahead faking a compromise.
They are trying to boil us like frogs by so slowly raising the temperature so we do not notice. Whenever the water gets so warm that people do notice they cool it down a little. But they will turn up the the heat again!
This 24h window is designed to make device owner controlled installs as unattractive as possible. They try to reduce it as much as they can while having plausible deniability ("You can still install apps not whitelisted by us"). They want to get the concept of people installing software of their own choice onto their own device as far away from the mainstream as possible. They want to marginalize it. They want to slowly and quietly kill off the open Android app ecosystem by reducing the user base.
The next step will be them claiming that barely anyone is installing apps not signed by them anyway. First they make people jump through ridiculous hoops to install non whitelisted apps, then they use the fact that few people jump through these hoops to justify removing the ability altogether.
Google does not care about preventing scams. If they did they would do something against the massive amount of scam ads that they host. Scams are just their "think of the children".
Do not play by their playbook!
Do not give them ground!
We must not accept any restrictions on the software we run on our own devices. The concept of ownership, personal autonomy and choice are being dismantled. Our freedom is the target of a slow, long waging war. This is yet another attack.
We must not compromise with the attacker. We must not give them any centimeter of ground.
whatsupdog 2 days ago |
pentagrama 3 days ago |
LauraMedia 2 days ago |
Kim_Bruning 2 days ago |
joelthelion 3 days ago |
alexovch 2 days ago |
Curious how this will play out for niche apps that aren’t on the Play Store.
undefined 3 days ago |
2001zhaozhao 3 days ago |
The 7 days vs forever choice is still crappy and gives me a bit of bad vibes considering they are the ones that pulled the youtube promotions (shorts, games) you can never turn off forever, so there's the concern they will remove the forever option from Android in the future. But as long as they don't end up doing that, it's fine for me.
Also, I do think it would be a good idea to make an exception to the 24-hour wait time if the phone is new enough (e.g. onboarding steps were completed less than one day ago), and/or through some specific bypass method using ADB. Power users who get a new phone want to set it up with all their cool apps and trinkets right away, and it's not good user experience to have to use ADB to install every single sideloaded app. Meanwhile a a regular user getting scammed right after getting a new phone is statistically unlikely.
undefined 3 days ago |
tjpnz 3 days ago |
vbezhenar 2 days ago |
robpx3 3 days ago |
DeathArrow 2 days ago |
Dangerous software is software that is not making Google money and that does not give Google control.
guilhas 3 days ago |
IamDaedalus 3 days ago |
chanux 2 days ago |
I appreciate if some good samaritan can link to it.
gib444 3 days ago |
doe88 2 days ago |
hypeatei 3 days ago |
The onus of protecting people's wealth should fall on the bank / institution who manages that persons wealth.
Nevertheless, this solution is better than ID verification for devs.
gasull 3 days ago |
davsti4 2 days ago |
gamin8ing 2 days ago |
Also, was this really necessary Google?
andyjohnson0 3 days ago |
Yeah, I know... Stockholm syndrome...
Although I may not have to live with it, as none of my present devices are recent enough to still receive ota updates.
Context: I don't use alternative app stores. I occasionally side-load updates to apps that I've written myself, and very occasionally third party apps from trusted sources.
ChoGGi 2 days ago |
t1234s 3 days ago |
ptrl600 3 days ago |
dugite-code 2 days ago |
nubinetwork 2 days ago |
acqbu 2 days ago |
hkt 3 days ago |
wiradikusuma 3 days ago |
What's the solution for 3rd world countries where 80% phones are android (and usually old/low spec) that balances freedom for knowledgeable users vs security/safety for the majority of users? you can roughly understand education level and tech literacy for the majority of people in 3rd world countries.
p0w3n3d 3 days ago |
porknbeans00 2 days ago |
palata 3 days ago |
The truth is that 99.9% of the people don't care. The remaining 0.1% is perfectly capable to use GrapheneOS.
hnburnsy 3 days ago |
undefined 3 days ago |
fhn 3 days ago |
pcthrowaway 3 days ago |
grishkno 3 days ago |
zombot 2 days ago |
b8 3 days ago |
w4rh4wk5 3 days ago |
If so, it's clear that none of these changes are actually to protect users.
the_wolo 2 days ago |
shadowgovt 3 days ago |
silver_sun 3 days ago |
timedude 2 days ago |
whatsupdog 2 days ago |
xorcist 2 days ago |
Google details new process to install unverified Android apps. The sentence is much more clear using established language. Not "side-load", whatever that means.
zelphirkalt 2 days ago |
How much can you twist words and language to engage in fear mongering? The headline could just as well have been "install", and "free choice" and "Google gatekeeps".
2OEH8eoCRo0 3 days ago |
omnifischer 3 days ago |
jacquesm 3 days ago |
xinayder 1 day ago |
PieUser 3 days ago |
viktorcode 3 days ago |
prmoustache 3 days ago |
eviks 3 days ago |
xnx 3 days ago |
Now if only Android would allow for stronger sandboxing of apps (i.e. lie to them about any and all system settings).
spwa4 3 days ago |
bonoboTP 2 days ago |
userbinator 3 days ago |
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."
TheChaplain 3 days ago |
Let's be realistic, there IS a problem with sideloaded apps being downloaded by ignorant people, and they do get scammed/hacked or whatever.
This leads to unhappy people complaining to their banks, politicians and media, these in turn starts lighting a fire under Googles bottom.
So, my point being, how do we solve the ACTUAL problem with rogue apps then?
cubefox 2 days ago |
mkw2000 3 days ago |
swiftcoder 2 days ago |
alpineidyll3 1 day ago |
NooneAtAll3 3 days ago |
jasonvorhe 2 days ago |
darkwater 3 days ago |
Grimblewald 2 days ago |
dear google: fuck off and die. May something worth the resources it consumes grow from your fetid corpse.
yaro330 2 days ago |
lenerdenator 3 days ago |
Does it have a Linux kernel? Of course. But this isn't a free operating system.
jwlake 3 days ago |
surgical_fire 3 days ago |
Man, fuck Google. I hope this bullshit is struck down by government regulation as malicious compliance to 3rd party app stores.
I wonder if GrapheneOS will have the same level of user-hostile bullshit. That may be my salvation board right now.
Sailfish OS would be great, but unfortunately my banks don't seem to play along with it.
realxrobau 3 days ago |
Assuming the requirements are actually justified, this seems like a tolerable compromise.
smashah 3 days ago |
hamdouni 3 days ago |
storus 3 days ago |
dankobgd 2 days ago |
pugchat2 2 days ago |
inquirerGeneral 3 days ago |
sevaustinov74 3 days ago |
Myzel394 3 days ago |
And no, I'm not a bot or some pro Google activist, check my github account, I even use GrapheneOS myself.
politelemon 3 days ago |
Having to wait a day for a one off isn't a big deal, if they kept it looser then you'd be shouting about the amount of scams that propagate on the platform.
I can bet that a few versions down the line, the "Not recommended" option of allowing installs indefinitely will become so not recommended that they'll remove it outright. Then shrink the 7 day window to 3 days or less. Or only give users one allowed attempt at installing an app, after which it's another 24 hour waiting period for you. Then ask the user to verify themselves as a developer if they want to install whatever they want. Whatever helps them turn people away from alternatives and shrink the odds of someone dislodging their monopoly, they will do. Anything to drive people to Google Play only.