[mozball]

Your banking app is not going to work on Linux either. If Android is fundamentally broken then fork it. My point is, it seem smarter/easier to take Android and make it more linux-like than to take Linux and make it more Android-like. All the work is already done and paid for. Sailing with the wind vs sailing against the wind.

edit : Unless the goal is also to benefit the linux desktop ecosystem (the whole convergence meme)

[CalRobert]

This is why it's so worrying that browsers are getting the same treatment. Attestation/WEI will bring this to the desktop (and mobile browser for that matter) and you'll have to use Chrome or an approved Chrome reskin (every other browser, basically) for most things.

[NotPractical]

> you'll have to use Chrome

That isn't sufficient. You'll also need to use an OS which provides "acceptable" hardware attestation capabilities (as defined by Google) required to verify that the copy of Chrome is legitimate (otherwise this could be spoofed). In practice that most likely means your options are limited to: Windows 11, macOS with System Integrity Protection enabled, Chrome OS, stock Android with Google services installed as system apps, iOS.

Google's first attempt at bringing attestation to the web, WEI, was shot down by hackers, but it won't be the last. Please continue to fight against this.

[metadat]

> Your banking app is not going to work on Linux either

Why is that? I can use my bank through Linux via a web browser without issue. Logging in more frequently is a hassle but not a bad trade IMO.

[mozball]

The native app won't work though. The problem alluded to by grandparent comment and in linked-article.

[walthamstow]

My bank doesn't even have a web portal, it's app-only. This is remarkably common in the UK, birthplace of Monzo, Revolut and Starling.

[PhilipRoman]

Presumably this is about apps which are required for authentication, even in the browser version.

[zozbot234]

> If Android is fundamentally broken then fork it. My point is, it seem smarter/easier to take Android and make it more linux-like than to take Linux and make it more Android-like.

That's what LineageOS (née CyanogenMod) tries to do, and what this leads to in practice is force them to depend on a heap of proprietary code (downstream kernels and userspace blobs). Outside of that, the work that's "done" on the AOSP/LineageOS UI layers and supporting software/"apps" is relatively easy to port over to Desktop Linux - the GNOME Mobile UX is actually making great progress from that POV. So I'm quite skeptical about your proposed approach.

[NotPractical]

> Your banking app is not going to work on Linux either.

I think the idea is that no amount of forking Android is going to produce something different enough to entice developers to port their apps to it, but maybe if an entirely new Linux-based mobile platform kicks off, there's a chance?

If you have to consult `developer.android.com` (a Google-owned domain) to develop for your "totally not Android" platform, it may be difficult to avoid the temptation to do as the documentation recommends and simply embrace proprietary Google services and hardware attestation and whatnot. After all, 99% of users have those things and it's just these several weird forks that don't?

[dtech]

I highly doubt devs are interested in developing apps for such a niche mobile OS outside of hacker circles.

Windows Phone failed because even paying devs for apps couldn't entice them to do so.