Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

makeuseof.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 564 posts

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#31

Post by omnimus »

jadbox wrote: post #7
itg wrote: post #2

Installing any app I want outside the Play Store was the primary reason I decided to go with Android, despite most of the people I know using iPhones. If I can't do this anymore, I may as well switch and be able to use iMessage and FaceTime with them.

You can still install apps outside the play store, but the developer does need to verify their signing information. Effectively this means that any app you install must have a paper trail to the originating developer, even if its not on the app store. On one hand, I can see the need for this to track down virus creators, but on the other, it provides Google transparency and control over side loaded app. It IS a conce…

Yeah... no. This is normal with desktop computers. Let's stop handholding people. If I trust the source, I trust the domain... I want to be able to install app from its source.

Googles/Apples argument would have been much stronger if their stores managed to not allow scams/malware/bad apps to their store but this is not the case. They want to have the full control without having the full responsibility. It's just powergrab.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#32

Post by close04 »

jadbox wrote: post #7
itg wrote: post #2

Installing any app I want outside the Play Store was the primary reason I decided to go with Android, despite most of the people I know using iPhones. If I can't do this anymore, I may as well switch and be able to use iMessage and FaceTime with them.

You can still install apps outside the play store, but the developer does need to verify their signing information. Effectively this means that any app you install must have a paper trail to the originating developer, even if its not on the app store. On one hand, I can see the need for this to track down virus creators, but on the other, it provides Google transparency and control over side loaded app. It IS a conce…

> need for this to track down virus creators

I think they’re just going to track down a random person in a random country who put their name down in exchange for a modest sum of money. That’s if there’s even a real person at the other end. Do you really think that malware creators will stumble on this?

This has to be about controlling apps that are inconvenient to Google. Those that are used to bypass Google’s control and hits their ad revenue or data collection efforts.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#33

Post by gruez »

HiPhish wrote: post #4

We need to stop calling it "sideloading", we should call it freely installing software. The term "sideloading" makes it sound shady and hacky when in reality it is what we have been able to do on our computers since forever. These are not phones, they are computers shaped like phones, computer which we fully bought with our money, and I we shall install what we want on our own computers.

>The term "sideloading" makes it sound shady and hacky

"side" refers to the fact that it's not going through the first party app store, and doesn't have any negative connotations beyond that. Maybe if it was called "backloading" you'd have a point, but this whole language thing feels like a kerfuffle over nothing.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#34

Post by gdulli »

itg wrote: post #2

Installing any app I want outside the Play Store was the primary reason I decided to go with Android, despite most of the people I know using iPhones. If I can't do this anymore, I may as well switch and be able to use iMessage and FaceTime with them.

Then you'd be rewarding the company that pioneered and normalized taking away these rights. The next rights you'll lose will probably originate on Apple again years before Google takes them away too.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#35

Post by blaze33 »

jadbox wrote: post #7
itg wrote: post #2

Installing any app I want outside the Play Store was the primary reason I decided to go with Android, despite most of the people I know using iPhones. If I can't do this anymore, I may as well switch and be able to use iMessage and FaceTime with them.

You can still install apps outside the play store, but the developer does need to verify their signing information. Effectively this means that any app you install must have a paper trail to the originating developer, even if its not on the app store. On one hand, I can see the need for this to track down virus creators, but on the other, it provides Google transparency and control over side loaded app. It IS a conce…

Pretty sure virus creators could just pick a real ID leaked by the "adult only logins" shenanigans, whereas legit app developers probably wouldn't want to commit identity fraud.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#36

Post by ptrl600 »

mixologic wrote: post #19

If you want to install software on your Microsoft Windows computer, it has to be signed by a verified developer, otherwise you get an overridable warning that the developer cannot be verified, the software may contain malware etc. If you want to install software on you MacOS machine, the same thing applies. It must come from a verified developer with an apple account, otherwise you get a warning and must jump through…

I'd be fine if it was just any old code "it" downloads. The problem is that it's any old code "I" download too.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#37

Post by ta1243 »

HiPhish wrote: post #4

We need to stop calling it "sideloading", we should call it freely installing software. The term "sideloading" makes it sound shady and hacky when in reality it is what we have been able to do on our computers since forever. These are not phones, they are computers shaped like phones, computer which we fully bought with our money, and I we shall install what we want on our own computers.

> when in reality it is what we have been able to do on our computers since forever

You do realise that's been changing right? Slowly of course, there's no single villain that James Bond could take down, or that a charistmatic leader could get elected could change. The oil tanker has been moving in that direction for decades. There are legions defending the right to run your own software, but it's a continual war of attrition.

The vast majority of people on this site (especially those who entered the industry post dot-com crash) ridicule Stallman.

"Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that."

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#38

Post by gjsman-1000 »

blaze33 wrote: post #35
jadbox wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still install apps outside the play store, but the developer does need to verify their signing information. Effectively this means that any app you install must have a paper trail to the originating developer, even if its not on the app store. On one hand, I can see the need for this to track down virus creators, but on the other, it provides Google transparency and control over side loaded app. It IS a conce…

Pretty sure virus creators could just pick a real ID leaked by the "adult only logins" shenanigans, whereas legit app developers probably wouldn't want to commit identity fraud.

If it gets that bad; Google can do what they already do with business listings - send a letter to the physical address matching the ID, containing a code, which then must be entered into the online portal.

Do that + identity check = bans for virus makers are not easily evaded, regardless of where they live.

Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move

#39

Post by kspacewalk2 »

mixologic wrote: post #19

If you want to install software on your Microsoft Windows computer, it has to be signed by a verified developer, otherwise you get an overridable warning that the developer cannot be verified, the software may contain malware etc. If you want to install software on you MacOS machine, the same thing applies. It must come from a verified developer with an apple account, otherwise you get a warning and must jump through…

I'm okay with overridable warnings, having to open system settings to override the verification, etc. It's a "huge safety win" for the 80% of users who don't really know what they're doing, security wise. But not for me.

I won't be using any OS that doesn't allow me to step outside its walled garden, if I have any alternatives at all. With macOS it's quite simple - the second they won't allow apps from unverified/unsigned developers, I'm switching to Linux. On mobile, I might as well switch to iOS, since I'm not really sure what else Android offers anymore that's so compelling, other than being able to install apps directly. And then I'll just wait for a Linux phone or something.

Post reply on HN