I think two or three weeks ago. So far no limitations in usage observed. But hey, who knows, they could revert it just as well...

Wero I never used/tried...

> They do not block unupdated phones because that will force users to buy exceptionally expensive devices to keep updated.

Hardly true, if they permitted Lineage and so on.

> Just like any enterprise software, it targets a set of common devices so they can provide support and QA on it.

Not really, there are a myriad of devices and they're not testing on all of them. A "pound sand if you're on an unsupported device and it isn't working" policy would be perfectly acceptable, as long as the issue isn't directly caused by the developer purposefully breaking the application for a subset of users that fail Play Protect check or whatever.

If any of what you were saying were true, then this wouldn't be just a discussion about banking software all the time, and we would see it happen with all kinds of other software, scaling with the complexity of the application or the level of provided customer support or the intended sophistication of the user or how "enterprise" the target market sounds... but none of this is the case, and if you tried to cluster products that do this along some axes the ones that stick out like a sore thumb are all of the form "controls something sensitive": money (banking, payments, investing, etc.), health data, copyrighted media (streaming), and multiplayer gaming (due to cheating issues). All of these people are very open about why they think they do it, and while we know they are incompetent, they are not doing it to be malicious and they have no incentive to lie to you about this: if a bank were truly not supporting your device because it was rare, they'd just say it, and we have ample evidence of this from banks choosing to not support "niche" browsers (including an era of "anything other than IE6" omg ;P). So: "cool story bro", but it is clearly wrong, lol.

Blocking people from rooting their own devices isn't meaningfully contributing to security, even if they think it is. Not relying on security through obscurity is one of the first things you learn when studying the subject.

For Google control is the issue (and the data flowing with it), not security, and once again we in Europe just swallow that shit and mess up our supposed "open" standards. In this case it really is because there are no competent people making these decisions. They just trust Google when they say: "It's for security".

I think what we need to do is all complain in the same way, something akin to: GrapheneOS is the most secure Android option, it's just not catering to Google by sharing all user data with them. You are falling for the false argument from Google that this is about security. It's not, it's more about sovereignty and control. And you and your bank are catering to Google/the US and YOU are throwing YOUR privacy conscious users under the bus, because you do not fully understand the forces at play.

Idk, this can be much improved :)

Of course they pass system integrity. The whole point of the thing is not "it should be secure", it's "the user has not messed with it so we control it".

Defend my criticism of ignorance of circumstances by pointing out some similar vague notion of how I spent 15 years working in banks even though they are not this bank and this situation? No thanks.