@pojntfx that would be terrible design, completely outrageous even. I'm not enough of a specialist to grasp that document fully, could you be so kind to teach us how you did conclude that google/apple would be a *requirement* from this document?

@arjen SafetyNet checks only pass on devices with unchanged, factory-sealed, non-unlockable firmware. Google has an allowlist of devices that pass that test. The same remote attestation mechanism is also used to block downloading the app through anything other than the Google Play Store, which you need a Google Account for. And you can't use Google if you're on the US sanction list (see e.g. the ICC prosecuter case). Using any open source OS of any type is also completely impossible.

@pojntfx @arjen I believe device integrity and app integrity are two different attestations, which would mean the device integrity can be attested successfully even when there's fdroid and fdroid apps. Can this be confirmed to be true or false in some way?

@fallbackerik @pojntfx @arjen the existence of other apps which were downloaded from other stores/spurces wouldn't be an issue
But if you use a phone without Google play services (e.g. lineageOS (although play services can be added later) or grapheneOS) or a rooted phone you won't be able to use that app at all
Maybe just having an unlocked bootloader would keep you from using it (that depends on what level of the device integrity the app requires)