I really don't see how Google will make Samsung and the big Chinese Android phone manufacturers (Xiaomi, OnePlus, ...) put this crap on their own custom Android distributions, especially because all these guys know that if they do it will have a very severe cost -- Besides Play and the Galaxy Store F-Droid is probably the third most popular distribution channel for Android apps on Galaxy devices, for example.
So I do think the only people who will be really affected by this are those running Google's own Pixel devices which are entirely locked into the Play ecosystem. The rest not so much.
> So I do think the only people who will be really affected by this are those running Google's own Pixel devices which are entirely locked into the Play ecosystem. The rest not so much.
Ironically its the opposite because Google's Pixel series are relatively open and thus its possible to install Android forks (GrapheneOS, LineageOS) without Google Mobile Services that contain ADV
Google is used to put their shit into the Google Play Store contract they have with manufacturers.
Samsung, XiaoMi and OnePlus will let this pass because that will be that or losing access to Play Store. Oh and also they frankly don’t care at all because 99% of people will not know.
Android distribution are already incredibly shitty and most people are used since the 90s to have their computers and now their phones full of junk software. The average smartphone is not that different from the average windows XP/Vista PC of the 2000 era, with crapware everywhere, apps that are doing a lot of malicious things without the user even knowing (or frankly, caring).
For you and me it’s something unacceptable, but for most people it’s just the nth layer of enshitification.
FOSS fork of Android is useless without hardware capable of running them. Which means you need hardware manufacturers and telecom companies on your side.
> But you can still install whatever you want over ADB...
...if you wait 24 hours.
And also thanks to the new Google Play attestation API a lot of apps won't even work on alternative Android OS'es. But that's all needed in the name of security. Never mind if your Samsung Galaxy phone is EOL and hasn't been receiving updates for 4 years anymore. It still works with the attestation API. But the fully updated GrapheneOS phone is a real security hazard apparently, so it won't work with it.
So no, you can't just run everything you want via side-loading. It's pretty obvious Google is making a power play to curb down on everything that isn't going via Google Play.
Ok, that's some good news. Still leaves the attestation API though. Which makes using a non-Google sanctioned device a non-viable option. Also don't forget that the source code for Android is now, since 2026, only released twice a year (i.e. every 6 months).
So overall it's quite clear which direction Google is moving in. They are clamping down on the ecosystem.
PCI-DSS (enforced by banks/payment processors) means the EMV token store on your Android phone must be in an isolated uncompromised location (usually the TEE).
If your phone is rooted or has an unlocked bootloader then it's possible that trusted store is no longer secure or can be snooped on by a third party. Given Google Wallet/Pay handles EMV tokens and stores them on the phone, it has to pass PCI-DSS before banks will allow it.
This is the biggest reason why Google tries as much as possible to block Google Pay on rooted/unlocked devices. If a device fails compliance (a rooted phone certainly does), as far as banks are concerned it's not safe.
But people just find it easier to say "Google is Evil".
You also have the EUs Payment Services Directive (so a law) which require strong customer authentication, rooted devices can also fail up here. If anyone else than the user is able to unlock the screen (and thus authenticate a payment), you've failed the Payment Services Directive.
> You also have the EUs Payment Services Directive (so a law) which require strong customer authentication, rooted devices can also fail up here.
Plain wrong. PSD3 does not apply to "digital wallets" [1] ("This Directive also does *not* cover, in its scope, the provision of technical services including processing or the operation of digital wallets.").
> If your phone is rooted or has an unlocked bootloader then it's possible that trusted store is no longer secure or can be snooped on by a third party.
That's also wrong. Even with a rooted phone you can't mess or snoop on data in the trusted execution environment. The isolation is enforced in hardware.
> If a device fails compliance (a rooted phone certainly does), as far as banks are concerned it's not safe.
If this were about security, then why allow phones which have known security vulnerabilities (and no longer receive updates) to pass the Google Play Integrity API tests?
> But people just find it easier to say "Google is Evil".
Apparently you also find it easy to forgo about the history of Android. Like how Google introduced the Google Play API about a decade ago and did a "Embrace, extend, extinguish" thing. You also conveniently stay silent on things like the fact that Google now only releases the Android sources only twice a year.
> Even with a rooted phone you can't mess or snoop on data in the trusted execution environment
A rooted phone can have a modified runtime/kernel that can inject code into whatever processes it sees fit, including Google Pay.
Which can expose information being sent to and read from the TEE by the app.
> Plain wrong. PSD3 does not apply to "digital wallets" [1] ("This Directive also does not cover, in its scope, the provision of technical services including processing or the operation of digital wallets.").
The legislation still applies to the bank behind Google Pay.
> A rooted phone can have a modified runtime/kernel that can inject code into whatever processes it sees fit, including Google Pay. Which can expose information being sent to and read from the TEE by the app.
You seem to have now realized (?) you can't modify or see data in the trusted execution environment from the host OS (rooted or not). Meaning the point you made earlier: "means the EMV token store on your Android phone must be in an isolated uncompromised location (usually the TEE)." is not affected by your phone being rooted.
So you have shifted your argument from "the store is unsafe" (false) to "the data in transit to the app might be observable". PCI-DSS doesn't require you to have something like Google Play Integrity API for that.
> The legislation still applies to the bank behind Google Pay.
You started out with that the Google Play integrity API was a hard requirement to comply with legislation (false). Sure, banks are still responsible for fraud under that legislation. But that is a very broad statement which doesn't require Google Play integrity API. GrapheneOS proved you can do attestation in an open way. Google just chose to do it in a way which ties you to Google and further locks down the Android ecosystem.
Okay, so you were mostly referring to payment industry standards, not laws or regulations.
> PCI-DSS (enforced by banks/payment processors) means the EMV token store on your Android phone must be in an isolated uncompromised location (usually the TEE).
Do you have a citation for this? My understanding is that the whole point of EMV tokenization is that it masks the sensitive cardholder data that would otherwise have to be protected in a PCI compliant way. In other words, I don’t think the data that is stored on your phone is covered by PCI-DSS.
And as another poster already mentioned, I don’t think the EU law you’re citing works the way you claim it does.
> First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White citizens’ “Councilor” or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direst action” who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Certainly, the stakes are lower in this case, but the claim that the use of hyperbole causes you to "lose a lot of sympathy" is an obvious excuse for a position that you would have taken anyway.
Are you sure? It's popular to call them "ineffective" because it's a safe way of saying they annoy you while virtue signalling that you do in fact care about climate change and do think that something should be done.
But I've never heard anybody follow up that complaint with their own, more effective suggestion. In the general case, disruptive and particularly self-sacrificing protest does work. It's how women got the vote.
