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

111–120 of 564 posts

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

#111

Post by instagib »

detectivestory wrote: post #26
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…

From a quick glance at /r/GooglePlayDeveloper/ it looks like Google is just as interested in killing playstore apps! It seems that they only want to support the existing larger apps now. I think they are giving a clear message to developers that its not really worth developing for that platform anymore. I think we will all agree that the playstore needed a purge but they seem to be making it impossible for any new so…

I thought most devs didn’t want to develop on android because IOS devs made more income per user (0) and spent more on in app purchases. Android does well with ad supported apps. Paid apps have had issues with piracy also.

“In 2024, the App Store made $103.4 billion to Google Play’s $46.7 billion.”

0 https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-data-report/

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

#112

Post by ncr100 »

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.

How about "unlocked install"?

Consumers are already familiar with what a "locked phone" is.

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

#113

Post by chasil »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #76
chasil wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say that Google implements this restriction, but allows F-Droid a permanent permission to disable it for apps installed through their store. Then there is both increased protection and accountability.

Why would google implement a restriction then allow someone to disable it? That's literally how it works today. By default your Android phone with Googled-OS installs only from Play store, where all apps are verified. When you want to install non verified apps you need to explicitly allow it first.

Because F-Droid is going to regulators.

"We urge regulators to safeguard the ability of alternative app stores and open-source projects to operate freely, and to protect developers who cannot or will not comply with exclusionary registration schemes and demands for personal information."

https://f-droid.org/2025/09/29/google-developer-registration...

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

#115

Post by iamnothere »

[deleted] wrote: post #108
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want a real blackpill (I think this is the right word), consider the famous Cathedral and the Bazaar . I recently had a realization: I can name Cathedrals, that are 800 years old, and still standing. I can't name a single Bazaar stall more than 50 years old around any Cathedral that's still standing. The Cathedral's builders no doubt bought countless stone and food from the Bazaar, making the Bazaar very usefu…

[deleted]

Not to mention the large number of ancient marketplaces that still exist (in active use) all over the world, some of which are UNESCO world heritage sites.

This type of informal market likely outnumbers cathedrals, especially if you count the ones that evolved into tourist markets, high streets, malls, and central business districts.

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

#116

Post by petre »

gpm wrote: post #77
bitpush wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didnt EU rule that it was OK for Apple to do, and Google is just just mirroring that?

I believed the EU specifically ruled that Apple's rules which include this are NOT ok. And they're currently fighting Apple about it. Unless I missed something.

At least these user hostile actions are a source of income for the EU.

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

#117

Post by ncr100 »

api wrote: post #87
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.

I always found this term utterly bizarre. It first showed up in the early days of the mobile "revolution" and felt astroturfed, since no developer would think we need a fundamentally new term for downloading software. It felt like something some dark patterns team came up with to discourage free installation of software on your own device. Of course maybe I'm overthinking it. It's common for people deep in the bowels…

No I don't know.

But: "side talking" Is a worthwhile distraction to Google and look at Nokia N-gage memes.

I prefer the term "unlocked install". Consumers are already familiar with the terms: locked phones and unlocked phones.

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

#119

Post by glenstein »

chasil wrote: post #64
sidewndr46 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read anything about this? What you are proposing is exactly what is being disabled.

Let's say that Google implements this restriction, but allows F-Droid a permanent permission to disable it for apps installed through their store. Then there is both increased protection and accountability.

Yes, in that world everything works out. But as TFA notes, Google is pushing "developer verification" as a non optional change at the app level. To get around it in the future it appears you'll need a degoogled phone.

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

#120

Post by omnimus »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #99
omnimus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pow…

And you are completely ignoring viruses, ransomware, keyloggers, the 50 toolbars etc that has been the staple of Windows and before that DOS for over 40 years. Scam apps are rife in the iOS App Store. But what they can’t do easily install viruses that affect anything out of its sandbox, keyloggers, etc

Sandboxing isn't feature dependent on Apple being a big curator is it? These are orthogonal but not the same issues. I've never said that PCs don't have viruses or that it isn't a problem, only that I should be able to install software from developer I trust if I want to.

I agree let's have sandboxed app instalations on platforms. Flatpak is already going this way. But it looks like big players Microsoft,Apple and Google are gatekeeping app sandboxing behind their stores instead of allowing people/devs to use sandboxing directly.

Post reply on HN