• bruh@nord.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I was wondering cant we just scrape Play Store and distribute the apks on a different website? most apks has checksums so we will know nobody has changes the apk

  • plsnerf7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Yup can confirm. Some apps return this error (example tutamail and windscribe vpn). Fix it by downloading the apk in fdroid or github/ gitlab directly.

  • Cleisthenian@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Seems like clickbait but the graphene devs recommend against aurora store in favor of using a second profile with the sandboxed play store

    • artyom@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The Play Store requires a Google account. Using a second profile is extremely inconvenient.

      • NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Graphene recommending this at all is extremely sus. My objective of using your operating system is to avoid giving Google any information I possibly can. Don’t know why they always recommend using Google shit in a sandbox like those packets aren’t still coming from my IP.

        • artyom@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Its not sus. They’re just hyper-aware of security. And Aurora is just not terribly secure. Its just that you’re now choosing between privacy and maximum security. And I prioritize privacy, personally.

          They pretty much only recommend Accrescent.

          • vas@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            40 minutes ago

            I agree. Specifically, it’s privacy AND freedom (free software development model).

            If these two are against maximum security, GrapheneOS consistently chooses security. Which is unfortunate for me, because I would consistently choose freedom. (Especially due to long-term considerations.)

    • Eheran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I don’t use GrapheneOS anyway so fuck them, right? Why should I care about others when it does not directly impact me?

  • PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 hours ago

    It appears Google tries to degrade alternative application stores to just another app offered through the Play Store, and therefore subject to Google’s policies (including an annual $5,000 fee for policy and security reviews). So I wouldn’t be surprised this is very much intentional, as to force application stores though a channel controlled by Google; as to technically allow competition (at Google’s discretion) while effectively killing “side-loading”.

    • capital5@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Remember when Microsoft was forced to give a “select your web browser” prompt when setting up a Windows computer?

      Quaint times, those were…

  • UncleObli@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Misleading title. After reading the linked Gitlab discussion it’s more likely a backend change from Google side. Aurora does use burner account but early reports seem to suggest they are not flagged or rate limited.

      • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Google actively blocking Aurora Store would be much worse than them simply changing their backend. The latter can likely be quickly resolved while the former might lead to a cat and mouse game, where it gets increasingly difficult for Aurora Store to continue to work.

            • artyom@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              LOL yes, anyone asking you questions you can’t answer about the shit you’re saying is “sealioning”.

              • Victor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 hour ago

                The thing is, it’s already been answered. The conclusion was made based on reading the gitlab discussion. 🤷‍♂️ I didn’t read that myself but maybe try doing that if you’re curious. 😉🫶

                • artyom@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  27 minutes ago

                  The thing is, the conclusion is not going to be in any discussion outside of a Google internal chat or meeting. We know what happened, we don’t know why it happened, or what it means.