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

What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

f-droid.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#451

Post by 0xedd »

tonyhart7 wrote: post #375
BrenBarn wrote: post #16

I think we could set the bar substantially higher. Don't even bother with discussion of sideloading. Talk about bounded transactions and device control. What is needed is: Once I have purchased a device, the transaction is over. I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control.

"I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control." the problem is transaction not done once you own the device, you must use the ecosystem Google and Apple create this ecosystem and they own it, so even if you have 100% control of your device but you cant live without their ecosystem OS is just "half the battle", if its so easy Microsoft woul…

[dead]

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#452

Post by poolnoodle »

acomjean wrote: post #398
heavyset_go wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that mobile phones aren't yet just a standard type of portable computer with an open-ish harware/driver ecosystem that anybody can just make an OS for (and hence allow anybody to just install what they want) is kind of wild IMHO. Why hasn't the kind of ferver that created Linux driven engineers to fix their phones? It's because each phone SoC is essentially its own bespoke architecture. You can't build one…

One of the interesting history of the PC was when Microsoft started selling their OS to clone makers. To hear Balmer tell it, it was frighting as IBM was making their PS2 machines more proprietary. They won and IBM os2 lost. I figured android was Google’s MSDos for mobile, but it seems the temptation of ad revenue is too strong (even showing up on windows..) Linux is the answer though on mobile it’s just starting to…

That Balmer quote can be read in Trump's voice and it fits perfectly lol.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#453

Post by koolala »

dataflow wrote: post #410
koolala wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just not sure people have been referring to that method when saying 'sideloading' and Google didn't mention sideloading specifically there. This is what they say in the quote this article is about: "Does this mean sideloading is going away on Android? Absolutely not. Sideloading is fundamental to Android and it is not going away. Our new developer identity requirements are designed to protect users and developers…

I see, wow. That's such a frustrating lack of clarity on Google's part and (consequently?) those responding to the blog post... As far as I now, historically, "sideloading" has always meant "installing from some mechanism other than the Play Store", and everyone has been referring to adb-based installations as "sideloading" as long as I can remember (example [1]). If Google or others don't call using adb sideloading,…

TVs are an entirely different class of sideloading than Phones.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#454

Post by 0xedd »

echelon wrote: post #352
o1o1o1 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mostly a framing war. Calling it "sideloading" makes it sound risky or unusual, but if we called it "installing software on your own device", Apple's and Google's restrictions would seem absurd - like telling homeowners what kind of light bulbs they're allowed to use.

Or what kind of store you can drive to. Imagine if your car was locked to certain manufacturer-permitted destinations. That's what our smartphones have done.

[dead]

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#456

Post by tonyhart7 »

BrenBarn wrote: post #443
tonyhart7 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control." the problem is transaction not done once you own the device, you must use the ecosystem Google and Apple create this ecosystem and they own it, so even if you have 100% control of your device but you cant live without their ecosystem OS is just "half the battle", if its so easy Microsoft woul…

Right, so that's what needs to change.

well, we need a platform competitor like Huawei doing for the past years

but Open Ecosystem/Platform

which is likely never happen tbh, since the amount of resources that required is a lot and would need monetization which would end up like at position like this

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#457

Post by heavyset_go »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #417
heavyset_go wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that mobile phones aren't yet just a standard type of portable computer with an open-ish harware/driver ecosystem that anybody can just make an OS for (and hence allow anybody to just install what they want) is kind of wild IMHO. Why hasn't the kind of ferver that created Linux driven engineers to fix their phones? It's because each phone SoC is essentially its own bespoke architecture. You can't build one…

> It's because each phone SoC is essentially its own bespoke architecture. Right, but that's a choice from manufacturers, not a requirement of building a mobile platform. > It will always be cheaper for phone manufacturers to develop bespoke SoCs than it is for them to implement protocols and interfaces that make booting and hardware discovery standardized like they are on the PC. This... seems suspect? I'm not doubt…

> Right, but that's a choice from manufacturers, not a requirement of building a mobile platform.

Yup, it's a cost thing.

Standardizing busses, protocols, discovery etc is costly, it adds a cost to every SoC, just wiring up components on PCBs is quick, cheap and takes up less space. All three are important in mobile.

The reason you'd implement the standards is for interoperability, which is not what mobile devices are going for. You're getting the OS the manufacturer chooses and that's it, the hardware doesn't have to support anything else.

Standards are also a commitment, and that commitment can be a cost in the future. It's not free for PCs to support all of the legacy hardware they do, for example. A lot of work goes into that.

The reason I bring up ARM servers and PCs is because both have a long legacy of standardization, and to be a real player in either space, you need to meet those expected standards, which ARM ISAs have. Mobile has no such legacy. If PCs had no such legacy, I think we'd see the same issues mobile does today (which we kind of already do on tablets, Chromebooks, etc).

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#458

Post by type0 »

bane wrote: post #349

I'm struck with how long the history of Apple's earliest iPhone has shaped and produced long-term damage to the concept of digital ownership. Apple originally didn't allow anybody but Apple to create software for the 1st gen iPhone, and only later was forced "opening" it my market forces. People who realized they actually owned the thing they bought wanted to do what they wanted, which required circumventing Apple's…

> criminally cheap and powerful, open phone ecosystem.

It wouldn't, you need drivers for your modem, gpu, gps etc. It's encumbered with patents and "prohibited" software circumvention techniques, you're right about one thing it would be regarded as criminally offensive by our current legal system.

Speaking of android, if iOS had jailbreaking, maybe we need a bigger prisonbreaking from Google

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#459

Post by Nemo_bis »

pr337h4m wrote: post #70

Why are OEMs like Samsung just letting this happen? A lot of power users who buy flagships will leave for iPhones if Android ceases to be an open platform. (This segment is what is preventing the “green bubbles = poor” narrative from taking over.)

It's not like they didn't try, but Google illegally smashed them.

> Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Android) > > The General Court largely confirms the Commission's decision that Google imposed unlawful restrictions on manufacturers of Android mobile devices and mobile network operators in order to consolidate the dominant position of its search engine

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...

Press release:

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#460

Post by Nemo_bis »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #80

You cannot beat them at their own game without some other Goliath like the EU getting involved. The complain and watch strategy doesn't make a difference.

This sort of public complaint is the first step towards an European Commission finding of non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act.
Post reply on HN