People use alternatives for many different reasons (or multiple at the same time):
- They might want privacy from Google. Using Google Pay probably doesn't make much sense.
- Security protection against Google. Google can remotely brick devices with unsandboxed Play Services. After blocking of ICC officials and all the Greenland threats, it's not odd that some European citizens would like to block this Google/US government attack vector.
- They want a clean phone without all kinds of crap like Gemini preinstalled.
- They want to reduce dependence on big tech/Google product in general.
In cases 2-4, using Google Pay with sandboxed Google Play services may be an acceptable compromise for convenience.
Minor note, you forgot battery life. Pinging your location every other minute for traffic and crowd denisty for Google Maps, even using AGPS, isn't cheap.
When you find battery life randomly tanks for a few days, despite not changing anything in your life, it's always Google Play Services that end up being the culprit
Is this an AI response? I get why people want a de-googled phone. What I don't get is why they would want to use tap to pay, one of the payment methods with increased attack vectors.
I don't follow. If you mean against fraudulent spending phone based tap to pay is probably the most secure. It demands user authentication (biometric or code) for any transaction so there's no real way to trigger a fraudulent spend without the user knowing. Pretty much any other system allows for at least some amount of unauthorized spending if it's stolen.
If you just mean it's less private than I don't really know that it's terribly different than using a card. Especially if the ecosystem were open and you could choose your payment provider and not just have to use Google/apple.
if I’m reading the source I found correctly, that has got nothing to do with Tap and Pay, where a virtual card is stored/emulated on device via the secure element, instead emulating an Contactless reader and relaying a real card pressed up against the device.
If anything, this attack is a benefit of mobile payments, where you need a second device to perform the attack with, and the user to use verify themselves for the payment to go through.
Probably not but you’re doing a bad job explaining what wanting to de-google your phone has to do with the choice of wireless payment methods.
It’s in the name, “de-googling”, not “de-attack-vectoring”. People want to break away from Google specifically. They’ll still use tap to pay because it’s convenient, secure enough, at least as private as any card/bank payment, and ideally not Google, which was what people de-googling want.
> There is significant overlap in that reasoning and not doing tap to pay.
Or using a (smart)phone, right? No need to go to extremes, cutting Google specifically is the win because they centralize the “spying”, not cutting the technology.
You’re stretching this for no good reason and trying to find a connection that doesn’t exist just to save your argument.
I hate AI writing, so I never use AI for writing. Randomly throwing in accusations in discussions sucks. I don't think my comment had any of the hallmarks of AI writing either, unless bulleted lists are also not-done these days.
I guess I should be happy that people don't recognize me as a non-native speaker anymore?
Without Google doesn't mean the same thing for everyone. I got a Motorola g moto stylus 2025 and have been running an experiment for almost a year now in which I use this device without ever logging into the device with a Google account. Fdroid and obtainium work flawlessly. Aurora Store works for the most part but some apps won't even let me open them without a play store signed in account which is sad.
You don't live life only having privacy or not having privacy. You fall somewhere in the middle. You can shift your overall privacy posture up if you de-google, even one service at a time.
Uninstalling Google Maps, whilst still using Gmail has privacy benefits. Each step improves your privacy. Some opt for convenience over privacy, you can pick and choose services to use whilst still retaining decent privacy.
Tap to pay apps, if the developer is trustworthy or if it’s from your bank, are significantly more secure than even carrying a physical card around as your payment is now locked behind biometrics/a pin.
I agree, it's very convenient to have a phone full of corporate malware. But I thought the point of GrapheneOS was to escape that. My corporate malware only runs on my secure card processor which sits in a pocket glued to my phone.
But I thought the point of GrapheneOS was to escape that.
I think the point of GrapheneOS is being as secure as possible first and within those parameters give people the choice how much of Google they want. They have implemented sandboxed Google Play Services for a reason. Many people need Play Services for practical reasons (e.g. because they need to run apps that require it), so let's then run it in the most secure/private way possible - make it a sandboxed app, allowing users to decide whether to install it or not and if they choose to, that they can assign/revoke permissions like any other Android app.
The very moment it becomes possible to create a Google Pay alternative, there will be at least a dozen choices, some of them fully open source and privacy conserving.
The only reason why we don’t have them is Google / Apple duopoly.
I seriously doubt that. There used to be more NFC payment apps, but most banks abandoned them since it was cheaper to just pay Google their cut through Google Pay. Or Wallet, or whatever the hell they renamed it to.
Banks letting an open source project run transactions through them... that's... hilarious.
Well yes, but attacking Graphene for that is attacking the wrong layer. If you want an open payments system the government has to mandate it, or you could take the low chance of success with the free market competition method.
IMO the most annoying thing is that Google could solve this problem today by just adding the GrapheneOS signing keys to the whitelisted keys. Instead they decide to exclude GrapheneOS because security, while attesting phones that are still on Android 13 (multiple years without fixes for vulnerabilities that are not marked high/critical) and did not apply ASB patches for up to 12 months.
A first step would be requiring Google to attest all devices that have a locked bootloader, verified boot, signed with non-public keys, and have a recent Android version and patch level.
IMO they should also boot anything older than Android 16 and behind more than 1-2 ASBs, if security is the real reason to have Play Integrity remote attestation.
Seems to be only in the EU (because they're being forced to), and some other sources say google is offsetting the fee through revenue sharing back to the OEMs. In any case the original claim of "the purpose of remote attestation is to force people to buy devices that pay Google license fees" is questionable given that google had to be forced into charging money for it.
I read the very first message of the thread as "if you're going to regulate something, regulate that we should be able to pay without requiring Google", ie with Graphene and the like. I didn't read it as an attack on Graphene.
