a rando gig worker who now knows they have more than $100,000 in assets
Not saying this is a good idea, but I don't think the gig worker would know if you're paying $6.99 or $2.99 for the delivery, which is what would tell them if you have more than $100k in assets.
Android github app is not allowed to save files into pyDriod3 data directory.
Android file manager app is not allowed to copy files to/from ibochs android app data directory.
In general data owned by app A is not readable/writable by app B. This is a pretty important security feature. There are ways for apps to choose to share data, but by default every app's data is private to that app.
I can see how that might inconvenience you, but I think it's Really Good Idea.
Thanks for being the token doomer in the comments section, somebody had to do it.
I guess they read a few EU laws and came to the conclusion that they need to provide a bare minimum by themselves if they don't want the EU to decide what they are required to provide.
Nah, their previous plan already provided the bare minimum, since it didn't restrict sideloading of unverified apps via ADB. This is just an attempt to calm the complaints by offering an even easier sideloading option. Unfortunately, it will probably make the whole scheme pointless, since malware authors will just train users to click through the scary warnings.
Whatever method it is, it will probably defeat the purpose of ending unsigned side loading. Whatever the hoops are, users will be trained to jump through them.
This is sadly true. They're going to attempt to throw up a lot of warning dialogs to dissuade users, but we know from long experience that users will click through anything to get to cat videos.
This is actually not a change, really, since they were already going to leave sideloading via ADB open, so their plan already included an "advanced user option" which users could be trained to do. This new thing must presumably be easier than ADB. My guess is that it will feature more scary warnings than enabling ADB, but will allow sideloading without using a USB cable to connect to another computer so that on balance it will be approximately as hard.
During another discussion of this I posted a story that an Android OEM related to me when I worked on Android security, when they asked me when we were going to "close the USB vulnerability", i.e. disable ADB.
The problem is that alternate app stores would have had to verify all their apps with Google which defeats the purpose of being alternate.
How so? The developer verification does not require compliance with any of the Play store policies or anything at all other than the rule "don't distribute malware", since distributing malware would result in the developer account (and signing certificate) being revoked, which is the point of the whole thing, to enable Google to shut down malware authors. Or at least to slow them down, since they'd have to register for a new account, with a different government ID.
This does leave determination of "what is malware" up to Google, but they've been doing that for a long time and I've yet to see any case where people disagreed with their assessment. Note that I'm talking about designation of malware, not about removal from the Play store. Identified malware is removed from the Play store, but there are lots of other policy violations that can trigger Play store removal.
It's called ADB.
The point was that that was going to go away as a route for unsigned apps to be replaced with a requirement for signatures even when using ADB or other alternative installation methods
This is not correct. Per the information on Google's developer console sideloading of unverified apps via ADB was not going to be disallowed:
Q: If I want to modify an app and install it on my own device, or if I'm a power user, is there a way to turn this verification requirement off?
A: We understand that's an important use case for many developers and power users. While the verification requirement itself is a core OS feature to help protect the broader ecosystem from malware and can't be turned off, developers and power users can still use Android Debug Bridge (ADB) to continue to build, test, and install modified or unverified apps on their own devices.
(Emphasis mine)
This information has been up since shortly after the announcement.
... the latest versions of Android put too many "protections" in place that prevent usability.
For example?
Yeah, no doubt. But for all the good they do me, right?
Yeah we do the same in australia. Its fine. It was the 1980s when we did it, and I remember being a bit bummed out the 2c lollies wouldnt be a thing no more, but I figured I'm a teenager now and probably should be eating something more substantial than 2c lollies from the delicatesan. (although Im sure my mother was relieved, sweet things where banned in the house except for special occasions, but she couldnt control what me and my brother did outside the house)
The Bellamy brother and John Anderson say it well...
One Plus Tab2
I've had one for about 10 months now and I really like it. Good picture, decent sound, an active bt stylus, and a really solid feel. It was not cheap, but not in the Samsung Tab or iPad range.
I've had it for about 10 months now and I love it. Great screen, decent sound and a really nice feel to it. It fast charges and I get a solid 8 hours. Not cheap but not in the Samsung or iPad range.
There are no good android tablets. As an android user I have an iPad for tablet-y tasks, it doesn't get used much, but the iPad is the superior tablet for the average or power user android user. If there was a better option out there, I'd use it.
The fact that the iPad finally uses the USB-C standard has been really helpful, when my wife's iphone finally dropped the "lightning" connector we've been able to drop the number of charging cables in the house/car to 1, and drastically simplifies travel logistics.
"Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing; a confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished." -- Goethe
