[Magisk] pndwal:
Really?... So 'an evil company which is part of the evil control system in which society is (unfortunately) embedded...'?

I wouldn't be surprised if many of these claims have substance, however I guess that's why there's a court case...

I would be shocked to discover that Google executives have really been that deceitful, but still wouldn't rush to brand the whole company as 'evil'... I was shocked that Volkswagen executives sanctioned the blatant "diesel dupe" where many VW cars being sold in many foreign markets including the USA had a "defeat device" (ie. software) in diesel engines that changed the performance only it was detected that testing was occurring to improve results and admitted cheating emissions tests in those countries... I hesitate to write Volkswagen off as inherently evil however, and hope lessons are learned... Hitler on the other hand... ... ..........

Of course as someone "who advocated around the world for search engine competition as an executive for DuckDuckGo" the author clearly represents interests fundamentally apposed to the monopoly on searches that Google has garnered and I'm not surprised by her choice of adjectives or the invective used either... And of course the article comes with this rider: "WIRED Opinion publishes articles by outside contributors representing a wide range of viewpoints".

Also, users of Android are perfectly free to use search engines like DuckDuckGo etc as alternatives to Google if they wish... I use that and Google both...

Happy to hear that...

Going off top of head here, and could be mistaken too, but I think very few innovations remain exclusive to Pixel; I believe all that survive filter down quickly to AOSP although all 'major milestones' are developed in conjunction with Google flagship devices... The whole ecosystem and user base benefits from these Google innovations once gifted to the OHA as part of AOSP, or even as part of the proprietary GMS suite that Google maintains since devices passing CTS/VTS are licensed to use this code too...

Nb. Google officially allows devices that have NOT been Google certified/tested (eg produced with China region ROMs) to run GMS suite (GApps) also, as long as they run custom (non-stick) ROMs, as a gesture of goodwill towards the modding community.

But Pixel currently constitutes an essential testbed for every major Android iteration and milestone feature that all other Android devices receive as either pure or heavily skinned variants of AOSP, and that includes devices running custom ROMs... 😜

Well that's really too simplistic a view...

I refrained from responding to similar arguments above as others have pointed out the differences between the security model for apps (which increasingly relies on verification of OS integrity on mobile devices especially but more and more on PCs etc too as well as sandboxed environments etc) and the model for browser based services (which, depending on a banks restrictions on which browsers are allowed, relies on inbuilt protections against data theft, phishing attacks, fake websites etc and use automatic login functions, sandboxing, security certificate checks etc) previously on XDA... For example browsers are risky because there are trojans designed to collect banking information whereas apps are risky because most banking apps probably have security flaws and fake/malware apps can be present, so the security requirements for each are quite different...

A good argument for verifying OS integrity whether apps or browser services are used is sandboxing... Sandboxing means a web browser, app or an individual piece of code is isolated inside a safe environment against external security threats. In the case of a browser, this stops malware from escaping the browser onto the system effectively... The fact that none have really demonstrated a good level of protection for stopping malware on the system affecting the browser however, is a good argument for including guarantees of system integrity such as Android Verified Boot and Secure Boot (PC) along with their strong attestations on devices even for browser based banking etc... PCs are catching up, but mobile OSs have preempted this it seems due to additional security concerns related to ease of compromise, use of NFC/contactless transactions, biometric identification etc etc...

Here's one interesting article outlining different security protocols and considerations for apps as opposed to browsers:

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-safer-to-use-an-app-or-a-browser-for-banking

Yup, and the availability of strongly attested device integrity verdicts makes that a fait accompli and only a matter of time also, as John Wu originally pointed out... See my last comments here:

https://xdaforums.com/t/module-mod-universal-safetynet-fix.4553699/post-88810503

No need to apologise... IOS is certainly the model of security that Google must feel a compulsion to aspire too... And I've said that before. 😆 ... Had to happen sooner or later anyway though I think...

Another prophecy awaiting fulfilment? 🤣

🙂 PW