I'm not in agreement with most of you, hn. They've found a decent compromise that works for power users and the general population. Your status as a power user does not invalidate the need to help the more vulnerable.
Having to wait a day for a one off isn't a big deal, if they kept it looser then you'd be shouting about the amount of scams that propagate on the platform.
Why would I pay Google after this? I have gotten rid of Xiaomi a long time ago.
For now, I am rolling with my OnePlus 7 with LineageOS, till I find a phone that's not completely locked down. Yes, it's old, but it gets my job done. Once I am off all of Google's services, I'll probably get rid of Google in most part of my life.
As, someone who is a user from invite only Gmail, it's difficult, but necessary.
So like a Motorola, Sony, Fairphone, Shiftphone, Jolla... none of these are 'completely locked down' (though besides Jolla, they're all a little: they don't come as "yours" by default because of the contract with Google to be allowed to ship Play/Maps/etc.)
This helping the vulnerable framing is naive at best. This is about an American ad company consolidating their power over what people can do with devices they bought and are reliant on daily.
Helping the vulnerable should not involve that. If your only idea on how to help the vulnerable involves that, think of better ideas.
At some point we need to start wondering if it's not just naivete but intellectual dishonesty. The same American corporations that claim to be imposing draconian control measures to "protect the vulnerable" are, at the same time, exploiting those very same vulnerable people to the best of their ability. Take Google, they have no problem showing ads for scams in Youtube and Google Ads. There is mounting evidence that their recommendation algorithms for Youtube, shorts, etc. negatively affect mental health, especially youngest ones. But it makes them money, and they've zero interest in preventing that or changing it.
And it's not just Google, it's the m.o. of all large corporations. Another example is Epic Games, they advertise how they will fight in court against big companies like Google and Apple to defend their users. Yet they've gotten fined repeatedly for amounts in the millions, for predatory micro-transactions, and misleading minors into spending money without the consent of their parents.
Time and time again it is proven that everything these companies do, it's always for the benefit of their bottom line, and consideration for their users does not even factor into their considerations. This is no different, they want to push it because it will give them more control or make them money, and it either won't protect anyone, or that's just an unintended side effect but a good way to market it.
Sure, I believe that the likes of Meta, Google, and god damn Microsoft who enabled mass brutal persecution of millions of people for money (engaged in recording and analysis of phone calls of Palestinians), care about vulnerable individuals, and not just about stuffing their pockets with more and more money by the means of increased control over "their" platforms.
My personal hard line is having to ask Google for permission to sideload. Even if it's free and no personal info is exchanged.
This new process is annoying but I can see it helping prevent scams.
Scammers can coerce people into ignoring warnings if they convince them their entire life savings are on the line. It's hard to do if you need to wait 24 hours before the setting unlocks.
Scammers can also convince people to give them their home's keys. Does not allow you to keep me from opening my door without the door maker's permission.
As a non American, losing my ability to run software even if google decides that software can't enter their store feels much higher a risk.
i would say its actually very easy. if someone doesnt have the smarts to know they are being scammed in the first place then not much is going to change in 24 hours when the scammers call back. the only hope is that this person mentions the call to someone else in the meantime
They will just call you the next days lmfao. There are countless news in my country that scammers hanging around on phone with the victims for some days before they do the deed. They are just switching from 1 long call to multiple reasonable calls because people naturally become more trusting the ones they talk more frequently and the scammers succeed more. That's exactly the words of a scammer when the police interrogating him at my place.
Having to wait a day for a one off isn't a big deal, if they kept it looser then you'd be shouting about the amount of scams that propagate on the platform.