You might sideload an Android app, or manually install its APK package, if you’re using a custom version of Android that doesn’t include Google’s Play Store. Alternately, the app might be experimental, under development, or perhaps no longer maintained and offered by its developer. Until now, the existence of sideload-ready APKs on the web was something that seemed to be tolerated, if warned against, by Google.

This quiet standstill is being shaken up by a new feature in Google’s Play Integrity API. As reported by Android Authority, developer tools to push “remediation” dialogs during sideloading debuted at Google’s I/O conference in May, have begun showing up on users’ phones. Sideloaders of apps from the British shop Tesco, fandom app BeyBlade X, and ChatGPT have reported “Get this app from Play” prompts, which cannot be worked around. An Android gaming handheld user encountered a similarly worded prompt from Diablo Immortal on their device three months ago.

Google’s Play Integrity API is how apps have previously blocked access when loaded onto phones that are in some way modified from a stock OS with all Google Play integrations intact. Recently, a popular two-factor authentication app blocked access on rooted phones, including the security-minded GrapheneOS. Apps can call the Play Integrity API and get back an “integrity verdict,” relaying if the phone has a “trustworthy” software environment, has Google Play Protect enabled, and passes other software checks.

Graphene has questioned the veracity of Google’s Integrity API and SafetyNet Attestation systems, recommending instead standard Android hardware attestation. Rahman notes that apps do not have to take an all-or-nothing approach to integrity checking. Rather than block installation entirely, apps could call on the API only during sensitive actions, issuing a warning there. But not having a Play Store connection can also deprive developers of metrics, allow for installation on incompatible devices (and resulting bad reviews), and, of course, open the door to paid app piracy.

  • Nikls94@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    This explains why I couldn’t install retroarch on the GalaxyS24 Ultra of a friend via apk or google play store. Would not work, but somehow the Galaxy store version worked….

  • Lightsong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    I’m pretty new to this sort of stuff. I was planning to buy Google Pixel 8 sometime in November when they usually have sales. And install GrapheneOS. I never used this type of stuff before.

    So will I have some trouble installing some stuff like some of mobile games, banking app, emails, etc? I’m in Canada if this help.

  • odelik@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    This seems like a brilliant feature to roll out as they’re getting investigated by the DOJ for being a monopoly.

    • philodendron@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      I unironically think so. It offloads the blame onto individual app developers. Google can turn around and say oh well it’s what the market wants

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      This has almost nothing to do with Google, it’s a feature that has to be enabled by the app developer. Meaning they want to exclude users getting the APK for their app from elsewhere.

      • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Kinda. It might be 3rd parties using it but it 100% an API designed by Google to keep apps on Google Play.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          For all we know it could have been requested years ago by developers who have apps that get pirated but there was no mechanism in place to implement it at the time, and wasn’t a priority.

          Just because it’s beneficial to Google maintaining more direct control now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the origin.

          • Madis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            Well, there is a separate system for pirating prevention, the Google Play license check. That has existed for years.

    • over_clox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Also, didn’t the EU declare that Apple needs to allow other app stores on their devices?

      This seems like a bonehead move all around…

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          Yes, I know. The point is that people seeking privacy eventually won’t be able to use their banking apps and other online financial accounts unless they’re signed into Google Play to ‘authenticate’ the app.

          AKA force you into letting them steal more of your private info…

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            I kinda understand it from the bank’s perspective… They need to reduce risk which is why a lot of banking apps check if the phone is rooted (if it’s rooted, how can you be sure that a malicious app with root access isn’t patching the app in memory and redirecting transfers to a different account?)

            Having said thay, I really don’t think they need to restricted it such that the app can only be installed through the Play store, as long as the app is properly signed and uses certificate pinning to prevent MitM attacks.

      • micka190@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        In this case, it seems like it’s the app makers themselves who are requiring the Play Store, though. Unless I’m misreading this, the developers are using the Integrity API to determine if the app was installed through “official channels” (in this case, the Play Store). Feels like people should be upset at the companies behind the apps, here.

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          Okay. Then either use older backup versions of those apps before the requirement of the Play Store, or just quit using those apps and services and switch to less enshittified apps and services.

          Easier said than done these days, I know…

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      I hate having to be on the side of “Defending” google… but this is the app makers fault, They are the ones using whats provided and installing the artificial limitations.

      Google just provided the capability to do it. The app makers are executing it.

  • hypertown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Good that most apps I use now are open source but for those few that I still get from Aurora Store it might be a death sentence but perhaps this API could be spoofed?

  • FireWire400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    They’re still pissed that people won’t put up with their shitty YouTube app and use Revanced instead, eh?

    • ngwoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      That’s not on Google Play so it doesn’t affect it. I honestly don’t know what the point of this is.

      • FireWire400@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Oh I see, so it only affects modded apks… They probably want to crack down on all those slightly-shady “spotify premium free”-apks.

        • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          No, it only affects vanilla apks where the dev implemented the check. For some reason the dev might forbid to run the app to users that side loaded the app instead of getting it from play store

          Patched/modded apks are unaffected because the check is patched out

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          That seems likely. The question comes down to where the line should be drawn. Allow the apps the be installed and then when the data is eventually reported/found by the app owners to have them file law suits against those who are “stealing” from them, or to not allow the cracked application to be loaded in the first place, which is easily disguised as a security protocol because if an app has code in it that is not originally supposed to be there, it is very possibly a form of malware, which then can hurt the users in the long run or short run if it actually acts malicious and starts doing shit like old school viruses did on PC.

          People want to say we own the device so we should be able to do whatever we want, but blatantly allowing people to install cracked apps with keyloggers onto their phones unintentionally will get them sued, and ultimately hurt how many people stay using their products.

          Imagine every user and password with the site listed was suddenly just accessible by everyone. It would be a hellscape of credit card companies trying to stop accounts because you order 18 pizzas off the dominos app in Georgia, and another 13 sandwiches in the burger king app at the same time in Jersey

          • TFO Winder@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 days ago

            I think things are fine the way they are, we don’t need to interfere, unless for profits ofcourse.

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 days ago

            People want to say we own the device so we should be able to do whatever we want, but blatantly allowing people to install cracked apps with keyloggers onto their phones unintentionally will get them sued, and ultimately hurt how many people stay using their products.

            Imagine every user and password with the site listed was suddenly just accessible by everyone. It would be a hellscape of credit card companies trying to stop accounts because you order 18 pizzas off the dominos app in Georgia, and another 13 sandwiches in the burger king app at the same time in Jersey.

            We need to have the freedom to load apps we trust, but if you look at the standard user base, that’s who they have to make the phones for.

            It has been 16 years since Android came on the scene. Why do you think that these things are going to become such a big issue now in 2024 and beyond?

  • 5cr33ch3r@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    The only reason I’m still sticking with Android is the ability to sideload

    I have no reason to use an android if this is the road Google wants to follow and expect my next phone to be an iPhone SE

    • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Google and apple you can let us worry about our security ourselves, thank you, though I’m sure you have our best interests in mind and only that

      • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Never ask a company to pick between the right thing and profit. It was all a matter of time till Google needed to stop growing and start producing profit for investors.

        To make it worse the Pixel 9 starts at $800 just like iPhone. So if you’re buying Android you don’t really save money over an iPhone like you used to.

        • BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          Never ask a company to pick between the right thing and profit.

          It’s fundamentally impossible for a publicly traded company not to choose profit over ‘The Right Thing’, fullstop. Shareholders feel that have a fundamental right to growth, and if Google’s CEO were to choose ‘The Right Thing’ over profit, the shareholders can oust them in favor of a CEO willing to choose profits.

          Enshittification is where every public company ends up, because the line MUST go up, no other alternative is acceptable.

      • Ibuthyr@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        I honestly think I’ll be getting a feature phone next time. I’ll keep an old smartphone just for Android Auto and that’s it.

        • nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          Some time ago, I looked at kaios devices, and they looked really cool. I only didn’t get one because I need to use some banking apps only available for android

    • sentientity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      I genuinely don’t even know where to buy an affordable device that is free from this kind of control. Some company always has outsized control (and in some cases arguably surveillance) over anything you can find on the market. It sucks so bad.

  • Unboxious@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    I use apps that aren’t available in my region for language study, so this could end up being a real problem for me.