Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
SafetyNet indeed was and it was not a mistake. Mistakes are bugs, a company doing things they didn't want to do, or didn't intend to have the effect it later had.

Banks on the other hand, as much as hateable (most of them are), also just shit bricks at mere thought of one regulatory spanking, not only hammering from their boards and shareholders (esp. the major ones). So – it might be a great idea to not shit on banks shitting on such choices.

Banks are also sacred of making changes and going farther from the "mainstream" and another reason is also because - they handle "real money", often people's entire life-savings.

We just think:

… oh, this OS is soo cool, so safe, let's use this.

… And then notice: goodness, this motherfucking company is not letting me use their app on this coolest and safest shit out there. Burn them!

And banks think:

… shit this one is not part of any common industry standards, let's stay the fuck away from it.

… Further: ha, authorities don't look kindly on this OS, let's stay extra away from it.

… And more: will this mean we have to support one more standard, one more release channel, one more modified OS? Anyone who mentions name of this OS again will thrown out of the window of highest floor of our HQ (and mind it, we are on 33rd already).

Solution (one of the) is forcing Googles and Apples to stay open, to stay respectful of user privacy in an absolute and transparent manner, to not let them implement closed-off protocols, to have APIs that is not availalbe to everyone – in a safe manner, not let them (and the politicians and security agencies) fear-monger the public like "think of the children" etc. Blaming banks is literally barking up the wrong tree – esp. in this context.

Another way is: not buying these devices and suffer the pain (and experience the bliss, yes!) and then hope/work for this number to increase and collectively point a thick and long shimmering hot rod (metamorphically speaking) at the hinds of such companies (hell, include the banks as well – so that they won't fuck up their desktop and mobile portals) so that they collectively feel the heat and are forced to bend (no metaphors here!). But no, we won't let go of our annual pleasure of this practically bullshit <First Time on an X>™ orgasms.

tl;dr: SafetyNet was not a mistake, making something like SafetyNet into the monster it and then making it limited to one company/one publisher (esp. since they are the ones who also control the OS) was the mistake. I think of this to be solveable sometnhing on the lines of multiple certificate issuers (but we have to be careful of eMudhras) - both for safetynets, and app stores (if not combined).

Safetynet was not a mistake; it was a lock-in mechanism. Widespread failure to call it out as such and oppose it as happened when Microsoft proposed something similar for PCs a decade earlier[0] was the mistake.

> will this mean we have to support one more standard, one more release channel, one more modified OS?

Android apps don't have to take any active steps to support third-party distributions. All they have to do is refrain from taking active stops to block them, but I suspect you knew that.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/business/technology-a-saf...