On non-rooted Android 17, ADB uninstall of system apps fails

mmicrotonal about 6 hours ago 25 commentsRead Article on github.com

FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

47% Positive

Analyzed from 764 words in the discussion.

Discussion (25 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

develoopest•about 1 hour ago

I don't understand why ensuring general-purpose computing is not a priority of the European Union.

All that talk about sovereignty, and we are giving full control of our digital lives to 2 American companies.

petra•4 minutes ago

I'm sure Europe currently uses the surveillance capabilities of those systems to prevent bad shit from happening.

So maybe they prefer another solution to the sovereignty issue.

vincnetas•23 minutes ago

Well that was the original android phone idea. Get a hackable open device that you can write apps for your self. Even attach third party hardware to it for extra functionality with lots of customisation. But this idea has mutated quite a bit.

mosura•2 minutes ago

Even by 2015 the noise in Google was “the Chrome OS model is better” with reference to them centrally controlling everything.

Andy Rubin was no saint, on so many levels, but when he was removed from Android leadership and the Chrome culture effectively took over this was always how it was going to go.

yorwba•29 minutes ago

There is no shortage of general-purpose computing hardware in the EU. If you need some general-purpose compute to make a car, an oven, or a phone, you can get it. That consumers mostly buy special-purpose devices that don't always allow them to make full use of the possibilities of the hardware is hardly a sovereignity challenge.

inigyou•about 1 hour ago

It's a regulated market economy. Someone has to actually make the product. They can't force someone to make a product.

There's MNT in the EU.

p0w3n3d•39 minutes ago

They can make the product according to rules that are imposed on them. One rule: allow privacy. Unless the privacy is not in the field of interest of both the producer and the EU

inigyou•20 minutes ago

Yes, you could make the product. But you're not. And neither is anyone else. And there's nothing the EU government can directly do about that.

vovavili•19 minutes ago

Then why are you not making it?

cmeacham98•40 minutes ago

While the EU and its member countries can't (or at least morally shouldn't) force people to make the product, if it was a priority they could incentivise it with funding, tax breaks, etc.

inigyou•21 minutes ago

NLnet funds a lot of things, few of which get very popular. It keeps a lot of FOSS gears turning but it's not making the next iPhone.

toymin•37 minutes ago

They could give more funding to SailfishOS, for example

inigyou•21 minutes ago

Sailfish would have to ask for it. Possibly via NLnet. Have they?

And they need a plan to spend it.

pitchlatte•35 minutes ago

yeah but processors phone home anyway at a level beneath the OS and there’s no european chip development worth mentioning. so i’m not sure real sovereignty is ever going to be possible. crazy considering ASML being in europe.

Cider9986•44 minutes ago

GrapheneOS has minimal, private [1] system apps so you don't have to debloat anything yourself. Manual debloating is not a good solution at the user level.

Some system apps are being overhauled, so that's something to look forward to. Gallery will be [2] based on ReFra [3].

[1] Except phone and messaging but that's the cell network.

GrapheneOS recommends Signal/Molly or SimpleX instead.

[2] https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2083724696722301266#m

[3] https://github.com/IacobIonut01/ReFra

Elfener•28 minutes ago

GrapheneOS or other custom ROMs don't solve the actual problem that you can't just buy a smartphone and install any operating system like you can with an actual computer, despite technically being one.

Also, GrapheneOS supports device attestation (the non-google kind at least), which is still ridiculous as such systems have no benefit to people, only to technofeudalist corporations.

mrbn100ful•37 minutes ago

What does GrapheneOS have to do with this?

This is very useful on OEM ROMs with a bunch of scrapware, no one expects a custom ROM to have this issue.

nicman23•33 minutes ago

in grapheneOS you can disable or uninstall almost everything without adb anyways

createful•about 1 hour ago

I think it might be a good idea to pause updates on our Android devices, as horrible as it is for security just to prevent this from happening. My OEM has a lot of bloat (Facebook and other junk apps you can't uninstall, useless system services, etc) that mostly do nothing except provide some functionality I don't use along with analytics every minute so they are uninstalled.

"Disabling" an app does not do that much, the OS can re enable it with an update or prevent you from disabling it.

I doubt there is true full privacy on a phone anymore with a stock ROM.

kotaKat•17 minutes ago

Every single reboot on my lower end Motorola phone, they have decided it fit to re-enable com.glance.lockscreenM every single boot and on every single update.

It's horrible. I don't think I can trust them to produce a Graphene phone at all, really, despite all of everyone's assurances.

spwa4•35 minutes ago

Extremely "Googly" responses there. Not a single mention of the strategy of Google to include, oh, payment, social gaming, ads ... effectively building it into the system and totally disregarding the reasoning that people might want to remove or replace Google Play Services for those reasons. Just act like all that doesn't exist.

jauntywundrkind•about 5 hours ago

Noose keeps tightening, the war on General Purpose Computing, the war against users owning devices intensifies. How utterly fallen.

We'll see what happens with the proposed ADB changes. Lots of no one asking for this, lots of people describing how badly their phone use will be greviously impacted, and seemingly very little discussion/engagement/justification. Maybe they'll fire the bullet anyways. https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/526109803

mayama•40 minutes ago

I said the same thing about waiting for 24hrs before being able to use adb to install apps. About 24hrs being not a big blocker and that it was good for security. It's all about boiling the frog slowly, 24hrs is the start and then they'll add more restrictions once users accept that. Ultimately goog would like to have the system as much locked down as apple or even more.

felooboolooomba•about 1 hour ago

You will own nothing and you'll be happy.

type0•about 1 hour ago

You, too, will love Big Brother