This is going to hurt legitimate sideloading way more than actually necessary to reduce scams:
- Must enable developer mode -- some apps (e.g., banking apps) will refuse to operate and such when developer mode is on, and so if you depend on such apps, I guess you just can't sideload?
- One-day (day!!!) waiting period to activate (one-time) -- the vast majority of people who need to sideload something will probably not be willing to wait a day, and will thus just not sideload unless they really have no choice for what they need. This kills the pathway for new users to sideload apps that have similar functionality to those on the Play Store.
The rest -- restarting, confirming you aren't being coached, and per-install warnings -- would be just as effective alone to "protect users," but with those prior two points, it's clear that this is just simply intended to make sideloading so inconvenient that many won't bother or can't (dev mode req.).
>- Must enable developer mode -- some apps (e.g., banking apps) will refuse to operate and such when developer mode is on, and so if you depend on such apps, I guess you just can't sideload?
Hi, I'm the community engagement manager @ Android. It's my understanding that you don't have to keep developer options enabled after you enable the advanced flow. Once you make the change on your device, it's enabled.
If you turn off developer options, then to turn off the advanced flow, you would first have to turn developer options back on.
>- One-day (day!!!) waiting period to activate (one-time) -- the vast majority of people who need to sideload something will probably not be willing to wait a day, and will thus just not sideload unless they really have no choice for what they need.
ADB installs are not impacted by the waiting period, so that is an option if you need to install certain unregistered applications immediately.
I don't think Google should be changing Android this way at all, and fear that it will later be used for evil. That said, I thought of an improvement:
Allow a toggle with no waiting period during initial device setup. The user is almost certainly not being guided by a scammer when they're first setting up their device, so this addresses the concern Google claims is driving the verification requirement. I'll be pretty angry if I have to wait a day to install F-Droid and finish setting up a new phone.
Evil, for the record would mean blocking developers of things that do not act against the user's wishes, but might offend governments or interfere with Google's business model, like the article's example of an alternative YouTube client that bypasses Google’s ads. Youtube is within its rights to try to block such clients, but preventing my device from installing them when that's what I want to do is itself a malicious act.
Agreed. I also don't think this should be in developer settings; it's kinda insulting to imply that only developers need to have full control of their own devices.
Personally those two changes would mollify me somewhat, though the slippery slope concerns others have discussed in this thread remain. Additionally, I think there's a real anti competitive concern in that these changes negatively impact the market for non-Google-approved apps. (Perhaps the latter could be solved by allowing alternate app stores like F-Droid to completely bypass the verification requirement, allowing those stores' internal app verification processes to compete on equal footing with Google's.)
> Allow a toggle with no waiting period during initial device setup
I like this idea in principle but I think it could become a workaround that the same malicious entities would be willing to exploit, by just coercing their victims to "reset" their phones to access that toggle.
Isn't app data, photos etc. usually synced with the Google account? Besides, Google claims that the scammers are using social engineering to create a feeling of panic and urgency, so I think the victim would be willing to reset and log in to the accounts again in such a frame of mind.
I'm sure there's a hypothetical scenario where someone successfully runs a scam that way, but there's also a hypothetical scenario where a 24 hour wait doesn't succeed at interrupting the scam.
None of this is stopping a malicious entity. We keep trying to use tech (poorly thought out tech at that) to solve issues of social engineering. And no one is asking for a solution, either; it's being jammed in for control.
Such a silly statement. Of course tech can solve social engineering problem, we do so every day startign from UX design. This is a good solution to killing urgency.
Ux is made for humans. Humans can learn to exploit UX. This is as useless a battle as fighting piracy: you will destroy your product before you solve the problem.
> It's my understanding that you don't have to keep developer options enabled after you enable the advanced flow. Once you make the change on your device, it's enabled.
Ok, but why is this advertised to applications in the first place? It's quite literally none of their business that developer options are enabled and it's a constant source of pain when some government / banking apps think they're being more "secure" by disallowing this.
> ADB installs are not impacted by the waiting period, so that is an option if you need to install certain unregistered applications immediately.
Someone is just going to make a nice GUI application for sideloading apks with a single drag-and-drop, so if your idea is that ADB is a way to ensure only "users who know what they're doing" are gonna sideload, you've done nothing. This is all security theatre.
Google could easily put an end to that if they wanted. Just block adb access from the loopback address and VPN. I'm surprised this isn't already in place. The setup flow for those apps you're referring to is awkward enough that it's clear it was never intentional to be able to access adb on-device.
If you mean things like Shizuku or local adb connection through Termux, it's quite an awkward process to set up even for someone like me who's been building Android apps since 2011. Like, you can do if you really really need it, but most people won't bother. You have to do it again after every reboot, too.
People who want your money always want to have really great UX. I remember how painless buying lottery tickets online was, it was the smoothest checkout experience in all of online shopping I have ever done.
The scammers don't even need to make a GUI, they just need to get you to enable adb-over-tcp and bridge that to their network somehow - an ssh client app would do the trick.
How many people do you suspect are gullible enough to fall for these scammers but also competent enough to install an SSH client and enable port-forwarding for an ADB proxy? Like fifteen people worldwide?
How many people are gullible enough right now to plug a phone to a laptop over USB and execute an exe on an operating system with no sandboxing at all? ADB even seems to work over webusb. (at that point you may as well give up on hacking the phone, but I digress). That's exactly why I believe the problem is more complicated and why Google's solution is not really fixing anything, not for the users.
There's going to be a lot of people who don't have a laptop/desktop handy right now - because they're out of the house, because it's unplugged in a cupboard, or because they borrow it from a friend or use an internet cafe when they need that. So a requirement to use that and connect your phone to it is effectively similar to the 24 hr waiting period: time to think, time to mention it to a friend who's heard about this scam before. This is why phones are such an attractive target in the first place.
Why do you keep harping on about ADB installs. That's not helpful. It doesn't help me install open source apps from FDroid. It's ridiculous that you think booting up a computer and using ADB is a reasonable workaround. It isn't.
How? Reading this it seems like only verified developers can skip this process. Most Fdroid developers won't be verified. I don't see where it says Fdroid would be exempt from this requirement. Would Fdroid be a verified developer?
No. F-Droid builds the apps on their server, and they cannot sign the apps with the developer's keys because that would require them to have access to the developers' Google accounts
If you enable the advanced flow as described in the Android Developers Blog, then you can install unregistered apps regardless of source. That includes apps from sources like F-Droid.
Don't be mistaken, it's the delay I'm complaining about, not how to instal F-Droid or apps through it.
It is not reasonable to advocate for ADB if the 24 hour wait is too long.
I'll copy what I wrote elsewhere. Fraud uses social tactics and legitimate tools in the vast majority of cases. Developer verification will have absolutely no effect on that.
Impinging on my property rights cannot and will not protect or help fraud victims.
The only reason I run android over iOS is the freedom to install things I want on it. A waiting period is unacceptable as Android has proven that it can't be trusted not to tighten the grip further.
The only reason I use an Android instead of an Apple phone is that I can install two apps off of github. I am actively making a certain number of very quantifiable sacrifices already at this very moment by not stepping into the orchard.
If you go forward with this, I am not coming back. I will never again in my life trust you. And believe me - I still have boycotts on-going 20 years later. Including microsoft. It is surprisingly easy to avoid you "Ubiquitous" companies once you get your mind into it.
Why don’t you create an option to bypass this whole thing permanently on adb then? You can even add your 24h delay.
I’m not convinced this is really to protect users from being hurt by scammers, it is really about protecting the users from doing what hurts your company interests.
>Why don’t you create an option to bypass this whole thing permanently on adb then? You can even add your 24h delay.
When you enable the advanced flow and choose the 'indefinite' option, that allows you to install unregistered apps 'permanently', which is effectively what you're asking for, no?
(I've gotten questions on whether this setting can be restored after a factory reset or when setting up a new device - I'll have to get back to you on that if you're wondering.)
> When you enable the advanced flow and choose the 'indefinite' option, that allows you to install unregistered apps 'permanently', which is effectively what you're asking for, no?
Is it a process that you do once and applies to any unregistered app I install now or in the future? Or do you have to repeat it for installing or upgrading different apps?
If it is the former then yes, it is effectively the same.
At what point will you draw the line between "the user wants to do this because of his/her free will" and "the user wants to do this because someone else told them to"? Where will you stop?
All of this is just a bandaid, so why not stop at the state we are at _right now_, without some kind of 24h-long process to enable sideloading and let people be people? Yes, people make mistakes. But that is not your responsibility, especially if it comes at the cost of freedom. The most secure android device would probably be a brick, but you won't sell these, right?
Please instead take these resources and invest them into the app verification process in the play store. Way too many scams are right under your nose, no need to search in places where people are happy with the status quo.
So... we're just going to move the scam into convincing the end user to run an application on their PC to ADB sideload the Scam App. Got it, simple enough. It's not hard to coach a user into clicking the "no, I'm not being coached" button, too, to guide them towards the ADB enable flow.
I think this is a "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good thing". It's technically possible to get around, but adding more speed bumps in the way of scammers tends to drastically reduce the number of people who get scammed.
Will third party apps like bank apps be able to detect whether advanced mode is enabled or not, like how they currently detect if developer options is enabled?
So give me a way to completely disable this nonsense via ADB.
This is hot garbage. Eliminating third party app stores like F-Droid defeats the whole purpose many of us even bother running Android instead of locked down Apple stuff.
How do you know this? It's been confirmed that you can use adb to temporarily bypass verification on a per-app basis, yes, but from what I can see, there's no indication that sideloading one app over adb will also skip the 1-day period.
This matters if you're sideloading an app store like F-Droid, because sideloaded app stores still have to go through PackageInstaller [1], which probably still enforces verification checks for adb-sideloaded apps?
I see the chosen language of "certain unregistered applications" (I suppose company mandated) already hints on the goal of control aspect. I want to deploy apps on my device. They are my apps, it’s my device, and I should not be required to ask for permission to do so.
If you enable the advanced flow as described in the linked Android Developers Blog, then you can install any unregistered app, which includes those distributed by app stores like F-Droid.
> ADB installs are not impacted by the waiting period, so that is an option if you need to install certain unregistered applications immediately.
if that's the case, why would the new flow help reduce fraud and scams? These are meant to be roadblocks, which the ADB bypass will just...you know, by pass it? Why can't the scammer coach the victim to use this instead then?
Do I need to be signed in to Google play to get the sideloading exception turned on? I don't sign in to it because I don't want to have my phone associated with a Google account. But I can't uninstall play completely on the devices I have.
It says something about 'restart your phone and reauthenticate' that's why I'm asking. What do you autenticate?
> ADB installs are not impacted by the waiting period, so that is an option if you need to install certain unregistered applications immediately.
Um yeah but then do I have to install every update via adb? I want to just use F-Droid.
>It says something about 'restart your phone and reauthenticate' that's why I'm asking. What do you autenticate?
You're authenticating that you're the device owner (via your device's saved biometrics or PIN/pattern/password).
>Um yeah but then do I have to install every update via adb? I want to just use F-Droid.
No, once you go through the advanced flow and choose the option to allow installing unregistered apps indefinitely, you can both install and update unregistered apps without going through the flow again (or using ADB).
This part I don't understand. I want to allow for a couple minutes, the time to install a unregistered app, and then go back to deny. I don't want to allow "for 7 days" or "indefinitely". In the text and screenshot of the announcement I see that you can switch these feature "on", but can they be switched "off"?
Every single one of these steps are blatantly an attack on user freedom. The steps to unlocking the bootloader and install a different rom are not nearly as onerous. The only thing I will accept as reasonable, is a complete abandonment of this policy. Google has destroyed all trust I could have in it, and these weaselly worded concessions are based on a bullshit premise.
Thank you so much for clarifying! That is most definitely not as bad as I had feared.
I still feel, though, that having to go ahead and proclaim “I am a developer!” just to enable sideloading is a bit much, as almost certainly the vast majority of sideloaders aren’t developers. Nonetheless, it does keep sideloading as an option, and I do see why, from Google’s perspective, using the already-existing developer mode to gate the feature would be convenient in the short term. Perhaps the announcement should specify this -- I suspect a number of people who read it also noticed the lack of that clarification.
And yes, good point on ADB. That does make this less inconvenient for developers or power users, though doesn’t help non-developers very much.
> - Must enable developer mode -- some apps (e.g., banking apps) will refuse to operate and such when developer mode is on, and so if you depend on such apps, I guess you just can't sideload?
What apps are those? I've yet to run into any of my banking apps that refuse to run with developer mode enabled. I've seen a few that do that for rooted phones but that's a different story. I've been running android for a decade and a half now with developer mode turned on basically the whole time and never had an app refuse to load because of it.
I can use Wero just fine in my banking app. Can't try the app that's called Wero in the Play store because it just directs me to my banking app. But I can open it at least ...
Philippines' most popular e-wallet app GCash outright closes when the developer mode is enabled with the popup saying that the device has "settings [enabled] that are not secure".
Just summarizing the apps below it seems to mostly be banking/payment and government apps specifically outside the US that break under developer mode and sometimes even accessibility access.
I wonder what makes them less trustful of Android security. AFAIK there are still pretty hard limits to what you can do inside apps you did not create. US companies at least seem comfortable with their security even with Developer or accessibility apps enabled.
It is interesting that most of these are coming from apps outside the US including the fully developer mode lock outs. US companies seem more comfortable with the mode being enabled which explains why I've never really run into issues with having it turned on.
The one-day waiting period is so arbitrary. Have they demonstrated any supporting data? We know google loves to flaunt data.
Something like Github's approach of forcing users to type the name of the repo they wish to delete would seem to be more than sufficient to protect technically disinclined users while still allowing technically aware users to do what they please with their own device.
Brother, there's an entire genre of scamming where the scammers spend months building rapport with their victims, usually without ever asking for anything, before "cashing out". One day is nothing.
Wouldn't a wait time like 2 hours with some jitter make it more difficult for a scammer to pursue the case? People aren't going to be willing to stay on the phone for hours at a time. With 24 hour wait, the scammer could just schedule another call for the next day.
This is obvious to anyone with a brain. I'm not familiar with scam logistics or the videos you mentioned, and the exact same line you put in quotes is what first came to my mind.
tl;dr of this post is that Google wants to lock down Android and be its gatekeeper. Every other point of discussion is just a distraction.
I think the more important aspect is that people will have 24h to slow down, think, and realize that they are being scammed. Urgency and pressure is one of the top tactics used by scammers.
Scammers will definitely call back the next day to continue. But it is quite possible that by then the victim has realized, or talked to someone who helped them realize that they are being scammed.
There's been some reporting recently where I live about a case of some woman being scammed.
She went to a bank to transfer the scammer money. They told her no. She came back the next day. The police got involved and explained everything to her. Then she came back the next day. After that, she apparently found another location which let her transfer the money.
There's basically zero chance a 24 hour (or any amount of a) cool off period will help these people.
It's not one example. The scammers purposefully target people like these. That's their business.
Like, I'm sure there's a small amount of people who normally wouldn't get scammed but fall for it in a panic. But, is that really such a big concern for Google that they absolutely must continue stripping user freedoms from us? Is the current 30s popup which needs 3 confirmations not enough? Will the new one really work?
> helping some people is great even if it doesn't help everyone
It's kind of funny, but I very much agree with this. It's just in this case, it's hurting everyone (in ways most don't even realize) so that you can help a few people.
It's like putting everyone in prison, because some people might commit a crime and this would save some victims. A bit of an overreaction, no?
Right, this friction makes it much harder for a scammer to get away with saying something like, "wire me $10,000 right now or you won't see your child ever again!" as the potential victim is forced to wait 24 hours before they can install the scammer's malicious app, thus giving them time to think about it and/or call their trusted contacts.
The sheer arrogance that you think someone manipulated successfully will just re-think the situation and ask their friends/family. The naivety to assume all scammers are impulsive fools and don't do this for a living, as their primary line of work.
So Google's going to add some nonsense abstraction layer and when this fails to curb the problem after a 24 hour wait, it will be extended more maybe a week, and more information must be collected to release it. We all know how this goes.
Sure, but what about a 30 minute delay? 1 hour? 2 hour?
24 is just so long.
But also, my expectation is that a scammer is going to just automate the flow here anyways. Cool, you hit the "24 hour" wait period, I'll call you back tomorrow, the next day, or the next day and continue the scam process.
It might stop some less sophisticated spammers for a little bit, but I expect that it'll just be a few tweaks to make it work again.
24 hours is long enough to get them off the phone, and potentially talking to other people who might recognize the scam.
There will be some proportion of people who mention to their spouse/child/friend about how Google called them to fix their phone, and are saved by that waiting period.
Sure, but wouldn't 35 hours do the same trick? Or 5 hours? Or 10 hours and 28 minutes? :)
The question is, why exactly 24 hours? The argument is that the time limit is set to protect the users and sacrifice usability to do so. So it would be prudent to set the time limit to the shortest amount that will protect the user -> and that shortest amount is apparently 24 hours, which is rather.. suspiciously long and round :)
You've got to pick some time value (if you choose this route at all), and if the goal is to prevent urgency-coercion it needs to be at least multiple hours. An extremely-common-for-humans one seems rather obvious compared to, like, 18.2 hours (65,536 seconds).
Unless you want to pick 1 week. But that's a lot more annoying.
Well, I guess 24 hours gives a good change to include at least one window where a vulnerable person might be able to speak with a trusted contact.
Someone who lives in another timezone or works weird hours etc. Our routines generally repeat on 24hour schedules, so likely to be one point of overlap.
Have you ever watched Kitboga? Scammers call people back all the time. They keep spreadsheets of their marks like a CRM. It takes time to build trust and victimize someone, and these scammers are very patient.
It sounds like the 24 hour advanced flow should be completely removed then to protect these people. Right? It can't be perfect so to follow you, it should not exist.
> This is going to hurt legitimate sideloading way more than actually necessary to reduce scams
Isn't that the objective? "Reducing scams" is the same kind of argument as "what about the children"; it's supposed to make you stop thinking about what it means, because the intentions are so good.
This is clearly anticompetitive. Hope regulators will figure out, then we won't have it eg not in the EU. However, Google is also abusing their power to e.g. deinstall apps without any option to decide using 'play protect' and blocks whole alternative stores through 'safe browsing' flags.
I posted this play protect incident about IzzyOnDroid a few days ago, because I was so outraged:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47409344
You have to wait one day only once, when enabling the feature. I agree that enabling developer mode could be a problem but mostly because it's buried below screens and multiple touches. As a data point, I enabled developer mode on all my devices since 2011 and no banking app complained about it. But it could depend by the different banking systems of our countries.
They don't operate in my county AFAIK. However that reinforces my idea that the endgame will be a pristine Android phone in a drawer at home with the banking apps required for accessing their sites with 2FA and another phone in my pocket for daily use.
their goal is to make software installation as painful as possible without being outright impossible : ‘sideloading’ is only ever a euphemism for ‘illegitimate’.
> some apps (e.g., banking apps) will refuse to operate and such when developer mode is on
And you blame Google for this? First of all, banks chose to make apps work this way, not Google. Moreover, they chose this likely due to scams. That proves scamming on android IS an issue that needs some technical solution.
We'll see when this rolls out, but I don't foresee the package manager checking for developer mode when launching "unverified" apps, just when installing them. AFAICT the verification service is only queried on install currently.
Googler here (community engagement for Android) - I looked into the developer options question, and it's my understanding that you don't have to keep developer options enabled after you enable the advanced flow. Once you make the change on your device, it's enabled.
If you turn off developer options, then to turn off the advanced flow, you would first have to turn developer options back on.
Why can't stores take over the "verification" process (like they do already)? Why do app developers have to be verified themselves, why does the verification have to be done by google? There are so many options, why choose google of all companies? Just laziness?
If I understand correctly, the F-Droid store itself would be possible to install without waiting period, as it's an app from a verified developer.
Would apps installed from F-Droid be subject to this process, or would they also be exempt? Could that be a solution that makes everyone happy? Android already tracks which app store an app originates from re: autoupdating.
Also: Can I skip the 24h by changing the my phone's clock?
If one verified app can install many unverified apps, either aurora droid or fdroid basic or one of the many other frontends would end up offering that feature quickly.
But there's been some comments that even that wouldn't be possible, every app would have to be verified individually, or be signed by a developer with less than 20 installs.
(Which of course then begs the question: Why not build a version of Fdroid that generates its own signing key and resigns every app on device?)
Yes, it is really dumb that some of these settings are exposed to all apps with no permission gating [0]. But it will likely always be possible to fingerprint based on enabled developer options because there are preferences which can only be enabled via the developer options UI and (arguably) need to be visible to apps.
What might help better is having permissions that you can set separate settings that can be read for different apps (including the possibility to return errors instead of the actual values), even if they can be read by default you can also change them per apps. (This has other benefits as well, including possibility of some settings not working properly due to a bug, you can then work around it.)
Because estimates suggest Americans lose about $119 billion annually to financial scams, which is a not insignificant fraction of our entire military budget, or more than 5% of annual social security expenditures.
Banks do these things to check security boxes, not to prevent scams.
In this case, they don't want users to reverse-engineer their app or look at logs that might inadvertently leak information about how to reverse-engineer their app. It is pointless, I know, but some security consultant has created a checkbox which must be checked at all costs.
What do scams have to do with having developer options enabled?
This isn't a rhetorical question. There's no big red warning on the developer options screen saying it's dangerous. I haven't heard about real-world attacks leveraging developer settings. I suppose granting USB debug to an infected PC is dangerous, but if you're in that situation, you're already pwned.
Android is attempting to discourage good / regular users from sideloading apps, rooting their phone, etc.
Android wants good / regular users to pass things like Play Integrity with the strongest verdicts.
This helps app distributors to separate regular good users from custom clients, API scripting etc that is often used to coordinate scamming, create bots, etc. If an app developer can just toss anyone who doesn't pass Play Integrity checks in the trash, they can increase friction for malicious developers.
Nobody reads disclaimers, and people who get scammed and lose their life savings won't be made whole by being told "you accepted the disclaimer, nothing we can do."
Most of the victims were last in school in the 1960s when all this stuff didn't exist. Also from experience teaching people with dementia or memory issues is kinda challenging as they just forget.
I wonder if you might be relying on a stereotype of victims. Here's some recent data: "The 2024 FTC Consumer Sentinel Network reported that 44% of all 20-somethings claimed losses in 2023". More data here: https://www.synovus.com/personal/resource-center/fraud-preve...
As described developer mode is only required at install time. Remains to be seen in the actual implementation, but as described in the post developer mode can be switched off after apps have been side loaded.
One of the first things I do when I buy a new Android phone, like day one, is to enable developer mode. I usually use that simply for the ability to speed up animations so the phone feels a bit more snappy. In all the years I've engaged in this behavior, I've never had an application refuse to work. A rooted phone? Yes. Definitely. But just having developer mode enabled, no.
That said, it may be that I've simply been lucky and have an encountered that yet. So I'll be keeping an eye out for it.
> some apps (e.g., banking apps) will refuse to operate and such when developer mode is on
Enable dev mode, sideload the apk, then disable dev mode. I'd argue that it is poor security practice to keep developer mode enabled long-term on a phone that is used for everyday activities, such as banking.
I don't know. I've been silently outraged and disappointed by this whole forbidding of unverified apps, but also hopeful it wouldn't affect me much as a user of grapheneos.
But this process seems pretty reasonable to me.
I'd like to think it is due in part to the efforts of F-Droid and others.
Waiting a day, once, to disable this protection doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I'd probably do it once when I got a phone and then forget about it.
I happen to have developer mode enabled right now, for no good reason other than I never disabled last time I needed it. Haven't had any issues with any apps.
I actually think these protections could help mitigate scammers.
It's not directly a big issue for us technical people and our own individual usage. Telling people about F-Droid, NewPipe (& forks) or secuso apps will be a pain. People will find free software / software not approved by Google complicated or suspicious. It is a huge issue, and even for us in the end because it hurts the software we love.
Didn't Google already lose a case over making it hard to install alternative app stores? How is this not going to get them hit again? This is way worse than what Epic sued over.
I wouldn’t be fully optimistic about the one-day waiting period. Almost certain there will be a pop up showing up with: Process failed try again in 23:59:59.
Another take: People are not getting scammed because of side-loading (or not knowing your demographics/biometrics). People are getting scammed because of ignorance & stupidity & lack of common sense. In a way, its just nature running its course. If I'm able to scam you successfully, don't you deserve it at that point? Doesn't matter what we do, if you are scammable, you will get scammed.
Have these companies sent out their people to old age homes to teach old people how to use their tech and how avoid scams? If you lock the system down at max level, scams will just move offline again or find another way. Same if they build backdoors into encryption or make chats data available to gov agents: all illicit comms will just move off the network or find another smarter way. Its just how nature works, we are seeing tech-evolution in realtime.
JetBrains’s default grammar checking plugin[1] is actually built on languagetool[2], a pretty decent grammar checker that also happens to be partly open source and self-hostable[3]. Sadly, they have lately shoved in a few (thankfully optional) crappy LLM-based features (that don’t even work well in the first place) and coated their landing page in endless AI keywords, but their core engine is still more traditional and open-source, and hasn’t really seemed to change in years. You can just run it on your own device and point their browser and editor extensions to it.
The really special thing about Frameworks is that you can quickly buy and replace basically any part, not just the usual RAM and SSD -- case in point, when I managed to damage my FW13's keyboard such that it was no longer usable, I could just... go straight to Framework's website and buy a new one for $40. And, I even had the option of a slightly improved one, that shed the Windows key and lacked the god-awful copilot key.
This approach even allows the manufacturer to correct design flaws after the fact -- and let's face it, there will always be design flaws. For instance, my FW13 originally came with a very weak hinge for the screen. It was perfectly usable for most daily usage and most people probably wouldn't care, but it meant I couldn't hold it up without the screen tilting back. Well, FW corrected this for those customers who really did care by just selling a new hinge for $24, and so $24 + 10 minutes with a screwdriver later, I had a substantially more refined device! (And to clarify -- there was a defective hinge version in the early batches, and those were replaced free of charge. Mine was a slightly later version that, beyond lacking the level of stiffness I preferred, was not defective.)
Being able to replace the keyboard is especially wonderful because laptops are usually "region-locked". I know people who use relatively unpopular layouts relative to where they live, and it makes it harder to buy and much harder to sell their Macs.
This curse extends to mechanical keyboards as well. There exists all sorts of fancy, beautiful and odd keycap sets... for Americans. Some times for German and French. If I get really lucky, I'll find some with a "Nordic" layout, which is an abomination that combines dk/se/no.
And I thank god every day we don't. The ISO keyboard is awful. Left shift is too important of a key to be 1u. I don't need a massive enter key that lives on two rows. Just insane choices.
I use a Dvorak-based layout on Qwerty keyboards, so in normal usage they could as well have blank keycaps.
Despite that, the Qwerty keycaps remain useful for me, because my keyboards are not programmable, so the key mapping is done by the operating system. When I have to unlock the computer with a password, after booting, the keyboard still works as Qwerty and the keycaps help me in entering the password, because nowadays I touch-type only on Dvorak, while on Qwerty I must return to hunt-and-peck, as there are many years since I stopped using Qwerty.
So only because of this password entering, I prefer to not have blank keycaps, even if I ignore them in normal usage.
They're really not -- Mac scissor switches are pretty delicate, and it's easy to do damage to the tiny plastic nubs on the keycaps or the switches... and if you damage the metal retaining frame in any way, you're toast (Mac laptop keyboards are virtually unreplaceable, being buried in the "bottom" of the unibody chassis).
I've swapped ~579 keys (6 MacBook keyboards, and one magic keyboard) with exactly one broken plastic bit from the very first key tried, before looking up the youtube video on how to do it. Damaging the metal retaining frame is impossible when removing or installing them appropriately, so the technique you used was very very wrong. They're easily and trivially popped off and on, if done right. Great care is not needed, with the whole processes taking me around ~10 minutes.
I think they mean different regions have physically different layouts. I supported users in different countries and know that French layouts are different than Hebrew layouts which are different from English layouts and so on. Trying to buy different key caps doesn’t give the user a native layout because the shapes of the layouts are somewhat different.
I was hoping that this is how it would work for System76 -- when I bought the laptop they sold replacement batteries. Five years later I find myself needing a battery and they are unavailable -- not on System76's website, not online, nowhere. My only option is to either replace the laptop or buy a used one and take the battery from that, hoping that it's good.
For the last six months I've just been using a laptop as a mini pc with no battery.
Yeah, but is it OEM? Even big names like Dell don't support their parts for that long, and you have to resort to getting sketchy third-party parts from China, or rolling the dice on a used OEM part.
> The hardware supplier that we use no longer has the battery. Therefore, we cannot sell you the battery. What we can do is provide you with the part numbers so you can source it elsewhere. If you're considering sourcing the battery for the Darter Pro 5 from another supplier, please note that the model number for the battery is N150BAT-4, and the original part number is 6-87-N15ZS-51E01. Third-party battery sellers may display one or both of these numbers and might also list other compatible part numbers that are suitable for the same model.
It's actually a Darter Pro 6, but the battery part number is correct in that text.
You can not purchase this battery, it no longer exists. There are a few sketchy websites which say that they sell it, but they will cancel your order a few days after placing it and tell you that there is "lack of material".
I use laptops since the 90‘. I only ever wanted to get a new battery. Everthing else never had anybsignificant problem, or started to have problems when the machine was already obsolete (5 to 10 years). While I like the Frameworks, I personally don’t see lots of advantages in terms of reparability, ovly eventually in making one with exactly what I need and no more. But then they are a little pricey.
Had to replace the NVME SSD in my Thinkpad a few years after it went out of warranty (that Thinkpad has a motherboard replacement on warranty as well). Needed to replace the fan in an older Thinkpad after 9 years.
Unfortunately the quality of Thinkpads went downhill after Lenovo took over, they used to be really good. But there is nothing else with trackpoints these days, which I vastly prefer over touchpads. (And even on some old Dells that had trackpoints, they never felt as good as on Thinkpads.) Also, Linux support was always very good, though that is less of an issue these days.
Never had to replace a battery though, but I always used that "don't charge more than 80%" mode. My old Thinkpad with a Core 2 Duo from 2009 still gets over a hour of battery (though the laptop is largely unusable for any practical use these days).
I don't mind repairing electronics in general, even on a component level if need be (as long as the components are large enough that I can see them, which really isn't the case any longer with tiny SMD components). And I tend to use things for a very long time rather than replace them. I'm still rocking a Dell monitor from 2013 for example.
I've also had laptops since the 90s, but my experience is the opposite. I've upgraded something in most of them. Almost all of them got RAM and storage upgrades. One got a mostly-compatible motherboard upgrade that required grinding down a couple bits on the frame to make it fit, and I got to have a 4:3 IPS display for a bit longer.
I love the idea of the Framework. I don't love the lack of a trackpoint, or the pricing. I'm willing to forgive the latter since it's a small company with a mission I appreciate. There's likely a Framework 16 in my future eventually.
If you keep them at about 50% and avoid temperature extremes, it doesn't take a PhD in electrochemistry. The thing is, fancy battery packs usually do contain active electronics that drain the cells slowly in storage, so it's necessary to charge them a little a couple times a year.
Yes, good idea. I do have a large freezer. Vacuum seal it, charge to 60% one time per year. Adjust charge interval to whatever remains after 12 months. It has to stay above 30%.
That'll probably be the last time that happens since a lot of places are starting to require parts be made available for some years after the last sale of the device.
I noticed that the battery properties (voltage, etc) were uncommon, as I considered other batteries that would physically fit within the available space.
At the end of the day it's probably worth replacing it with something that probably won't burn my house down.
I almost pulled the trigger on a mini PC over the summer, but said "the laptop still works, you don't really need this" and now it would be 30 or 40% more because of ddr5 and NVMe cost spikes.
A lot of System76 laptops are essentially rebadged versions of Chinese or Taiwanese ODMs. You might have some luck trying to research what model the ODM produces the laptop as and find replacement batteries for that instead of focusing on finding System76 branded batteries.
I had no idea about this. I don't see how anybody who is buying one of these because of the repair-ability would complete the purchase if they knew this. I also don't see how they can make all of their user-friendly claims if this is the case.
I'm running my lemur pro with no battery (on a UPS) now too. My first battery ballooned and then I got a second aftermarket one and it balooned too -- Yikes!
Depending on the model you might be able to find it online. My system 76 had a “Clevo” ID on the bottom sticker ( the company that manufactures the computers) I used to buy a replacement fan.
It’s too bad there isn’t standard cells anymore. I did notice my Bluetooth speaker (which had replacement batteries available) also had instruction videos floating around on buying replacement cells and rebuilding the battery pack.
Laptop packs I don’t think are typically made of replacable cells.
One of the white Macbooks used 50 screws to fasten the keyboard. Once I spilled some juice on it and had to replace it.
Took forever, but at least back then it was not too expensive or difficult.
Could have been worse: I replaced a keyboard for a friends daughter and her Dell had ~50 plastic studs holding the keyboard in place, each one was melted rivet-style. I had to remove enough that I could get the keyboard out, but not so much that there wasn't still plastic to melt to hold the new keyboard in place.
It depends on vendor really - I have Lenovo T480 and I replaced keyboard earlier this year (there are various options like w/ or w/o backlit + layout (I'm Czech), I have 2 batteries - one for "normal" use and extended one (in size and capacity) for traveling, changing multiple SSDs and RAM is possible (not soldered)... it's not framework, but easily fixable and Linux friendly HW.
T480 is indeed superb (except for being on the heavy side). I accidentally hurled my phone into the screen (both were on the bed and I shook the sheets trying to find the beeping phone). The replacement screen was like $75 and a 5 minute job. On MacBooks that’s typically closer to $600.
I’ll probably replace it eventually with a t14 which is pretty light these days.
the T series thinkpads tend to have a high repairability rating (9/10 on ifixit ) and easy affordable access to parts, it's the X series that's a PITA imo
Is there any generally agreed upon and reliable source for replacement batteries? Given the fire risk, I'm much less willing to take the risk of substandard aftermarket parts when it comes to batteries.
Lenovo stopped selling the batteries for the T480, so the only sources are various 3rd party manufacturers I've never heard of.
++on older Lenovo. Something that Framework might have after many years is a viable secondary and third party market for repair components. Lenovo has also done a great job with keeping their detailed service manuals online and available.
I don't know about you, but every laptop I've had suffered some sort of malfunction sooner or later and I never bothered to have them serviced because it was too much of a hassle - especially seeing how a friend of mine outright battled Lenovo support over mundane things like a failing keyboard despite everything being still in warranty.
Specific issues by laptop:
1. Pressure marks on screen, failing USB ports, cracked hinge after three years.
2. Pressure marks on screen, failed battery, failing power supply socket after seven years.
3. Warped reflective layer in screen, rattling fans, overheating despite fan replacement (which I did at home and it took three hours) after five years.
I also broke the butterfly keyboard on a 2019 MBP I was using at work.
With the Framework I can address each and every one of the mentioned problems myself - just need to order parts and spend half an hour or so per item.
Guess my normal usage is more destructive than your trips. The main driver of wear in my case was always commuting with the device and thus also plugging/unplugging things several times a day.
Also if you hold a 2kg closed laptop with one hand - you're going to have pressure marks and I learned that the hard way.
Anyway, all around me people have always had hardware issues - also with Apple products. I recall replacing the battery in a late 2011 MBP because it was swollen as it failed from age alone.
Bottom line is that I believe you, I just think you're an outlier.
Similar here. When I trade in my old MacBooks after 4-6 years of use they function like new and look almost new, and I do plenty of moderate-heavy dev work and traveling.
I have a nearly 5 year old ThinkPad that's in great condition too. Never needed a repair, though it's had a couple of spells where it acted funky that resolved themselves.
In Australia, all of these things would be returned for a full refund under Australia Consumer Law as a major fault, there is no time limit, just expectations of a reasonable consumer.
Would really have to come down what a reasonable consumer would expect; that is part subjective and part objective. If you could show an experience of having laptops for various lifetimes, some extending beyond 7 years some below, none having a failing power socket, that might be sufficient to convince that it is a major fault. If it is a cheap laptop maybe you don't have a chance, but a premium product you could argue that it failed to be durable.
(I read this as the power socket in the laptop, not so much the power supply, obviously you'll have less luck there.)
The idea is that repairability and reliability are sometimes at odds.
I owned a number of 90s trucks and though it was easier to get into the engine, I had to do it well before 100k miles sometimes. Meanwhile I have a 2010s Japanese vehicle that is at 200k with only an alternator replaced.
Similarly there's now a few models of EV known to make it well past the 100k mark while needing little to no maintenance aside from replacing consumables. Most people aren't knowledgeable or well-equipped enough to work on those, though.
True technically, but there's many people that almost enjoy working on their cars IF they are pleasant to work on. And some are. At that point the car is just an avenue for your hobby of working on cars.
My parents have a Lexus RX400H (hybrid), that even for me as a car guy is a nightmare to work on. It's technically never had a fault since 2007 with 215k miles. But changing the spark plugs was probably the third hardest thing I've done with cars, only behind dropping a transmission and doing a head gasket job on other cars.
I had a Framework mainboard die and I was able to replace it myself with a free replacement they sent me without need to throw away the laptop. The economics make sense when you consider they don't get the priority for chips or the volume discounts that a company like Dell would get from AMD or Intel. They are getting scraps and doing what they can to make it work.
Is that a viable business model though? That they’ll always be a niche supplier with low-vokume issues, seems like a tough market.
In fact, I think Dell or HP or Other could demolish Framework in a 1/2 second by offering a line that was even 50% the offering. By focusing on replaceable screens, keyboard, and standing the chassis for multiple boards and selling some parts they dry up FW’s moat with little effort.
That would be an AWESOME market development. Not great for framework but if they end up folding because larger manufacturers adopt most sustainable/interchangeable practices thats a win and I'm happy my framework purchase help prove/promote that market change.
The same companies that can’t make a proper website to sell their products? Please. Framework’s got it in the bag.
I don’t remember the number of times I typed dell.com or Lenovo.com, looked for a replacement for my 10-year old XPS, and came out extremely frustrated with the experience. Not to mention the recent copy-paste nonsense from Dell with their Pro/Pro Max laptop offerings.
Good display, decent CPU, a battery that lasts a day, and Linux support - that’s all that I ask for. Outside of Apple(bar Linux support) are there any manufacturers that offer that?
That last sentence is just not true. Have an end user easily order and replace a MacBook Air keyboard, or easily upgrade their MacBook screen direct from the website.
Yep, did the same thing too. It's nice that you just need one tool to unscrew, screw things and everything is labelled well that you don't need to go dig to multiple websites on how to do repair/replace parts.
But of all things, replacing keyboard was the most tedious one in framework with so many screws, haha.
Just broke my control key. They're sending me a new keyboard (well the whole cover as chznging the keyboard is hard) as part of the EU garantee.
Awesome. My last laptop had the same problem but the repair employee broke the whole computer when he came to replace the keyboard. Dell then did not want to accept their fault.
I replaced the keyboard in my 5 year old Dell laptop without difficulty. The battery as well (at the same time). It was an instant way to make it run and feel like new
You can swap out the motherboard, so yeah. Not sure how long they support specific Laptop bodies (or frames) for but I would imagine some of their frames are good for a long minute.
Probably because they include the CPU if I am not mistaken, but probably makes sense and is worth the hassle if your concern is your CPU / main hardware is falling behind.
You're excited about the prospect of repairing a manufacturer's faulty engineering at your own cost?
An analogy would be buying a new car then bragging to your friends that despite it being a lemon, you're thrilled because you can repair it yourself (at cost).
You’re missing the common alternative in the modern age which is the manufacturer not selling the part at all and being left with a pile of unrepairable junk despite an otherwise functioning device.
Laptop hinges were notorious for killing laptops for like a decade.
"Lemon" was never mentioned. That's extreme. I don't care what make and model of car you choose, I'll show you a list of TSBs associated with that model. There's never been a car produced that was perfectly engineered and had no after-sale issues common to that model and year. There's always something.
Yes, I would be thrilled to find a car that gave cheap and available replacement parts so I could remedy those issues later. That used to be the standard! The trend now is for automakers to keep juicing the proprietary software tools and one-off components, making repairability harder for the owner.
So, to rephrase your analogy: "[That's like] buying a new car then bragging to your friends ... that you're thrilled because you can repair it yourself (at cost)."
- Must enable developer mode -- some apps (e.g., banking apps) will refuse to operate and such when developer mode is on, and so if you depend on such apps, I guess you just can't sideload?
- One-day (day!!!) waiting period to activate (one-time) -- the vast majority of people who need to sideload something will probably not be willing to wait a day, and will thus just not sideload unless they really have no choice for what they need. This kills the pathway for new users to sideload apps that have similar functionality to those on the Play Store.
The rest -- restarting, confirming you aren't being coached, and per-install warnings -- would be just as effective alone to "protect users," but with those prior two points, it's clear that this is just simply intended to make sideloading so inconvenient that many won't bother or can't (dev mode req.).