• Handles@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      57 minutes ago

      Classic Graphene users, making this all about themselves. This hurts Aurora users, period.

      Edit: I ran into the same issue. For now, refreshing the anonymous Aurora account solved it.

  • WillieShen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    38 minutes ago

    Aurora still works for me for now on Samsung stock OS. I now mostly install Google Play apps with APKPure over Obtainium tho and only use Aurora for those not on APKPure. And most of my apps are from GitHub/GitLab releases and F-Droid. I disabled Google Play and didn’t login to Google account. I don’t want the requirement of a Google account to install an app and Play Integrity to run an app. It is by no means acceptable that a company, using a closed source implementation that also tracks user and breaks Android security model, can censor what apps a user can install and decide what security and privacy compromises a user needs to agree to just use the normal phone functionalities that they pay for and by no mean require those compromises technically. They are turning Android into a service and a prison like iOS did rather than a software.

  • bruh@nord.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 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
    7
    ·
    4 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.

    • fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      48 minutes ago

      I used APKPure for a good two years without much issue. Just felt very scammy with all the ads and it felt complicated because I was never sure which version to pick. Switched to Aurora (recommended officially by Huawei) and haven’t had a single issue ever since. Can even download beta versions now.

      I’m not having any issues today either, kinda wondering what’s going on to be honest.

      P.S. Still using Apkpure for Roblox / Fortnite / Brawlstars (can’t remember which) on the tablet, for the kids, and that’s pretty much it.

  • Cleisthenian@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    5 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
      17
      ·
      4 hours ago

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

      • NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 hours 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
          12
          ·
          3 hours 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
            3
            ·
            2 hours 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.)

            • Cleisthenian@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              You can disregard their recommendation if you wish, I do sometimes. If they were here, I imagine they’d say they don’t see privacy and security as contradicting each other, just that there are different threat models. I think they subscribe to the idea that not everyone is going to be sufficiently informed in order to make a rational judgement, so instead they default to lowering potential risk. They do value accessibility for the tech illiterate as well.

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      45 minutes ago

      What alternative are you going to make? My bank only publishes their app on Play Store. I can either use Play Store app or Aurora to install it. You think that if you build alternative, open source store my bank will publish their app there? You think any bank will? F-Droid already exists, do you see any banks publishing their apps there? Do you see any of them dong Linux version of their apps?

      The alternative here would be some other corporation building independent app store and getting everyone to publish their apps there. Amazon tried that many years ago. Maybe Samsung could do it now. It’s definitely not something we can make.

      • Ripley_Tripley@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 minutes ago

        Thats why we need an alternative.someone, some company, anyone that can make software that dosent rely on Google just to work.

        Its crazy that even in the degoogle world, we still have to rely on Google. if the whole point is to not use Google, then what’s the point? We should have our stand alone apps should we not? We can’t make them but someone our there can.

  • PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    edit-2
    9 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 through a channel controlled by Google, to technically allow competition (at Google’s discretion) while ultimately killing “side-loading” through other sources.

    • capital5@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 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
    41
    ·
    9 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
        23
        ·
        8 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
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              7 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
                8
                ·
                3 hours 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
                  2
                  ·
                  2 hours 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.