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

131–140 of 564 posts

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

#131

Post by lenerdenator »

There's an overarching lesson that FLOSS needs to learn from the last fifteen years:

If it's not copyleft, it's not free. Also, it's more than just a legal classification of IP law, it's an ethos. I don't care how "free" your underlying OS is, if most of the userland is proprietary and the only way to really effectively use the software on consumer hardware is to use a megacorp's implementation of it and to bow to their whims, it might as well be Microsoft Windows.

This is why I always thought Android never really was Linux. Sure, it has a Linux kernel, but that kernel just exists to run a bunch of software in a way that you have no real control over.

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

#132

Post by detectivestory »

jadbox wrote: post #44
detectivestory wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 have no idea what this means. How does this change "kill playstore apps"?

not the change mentioned in the news link. I was referring to what people are discussing over on the reddit play store sub. Google are terminating dev accounts without giving any reasons or warnings. I'm sure most, if not all terminations have have some element of justification but ultimately it means that Google seem pretty happy to terminate any dev account without letting the developer know why. And to make things worse, that developer is forever banned from ever publishing any content on the playstore for life. They cannot make a new account. Their career in android app development can be destroyed in an instant. Most terminations seem to be handled by bots... and to rub salt in the wound, Google only responds to appeals... using more bots. That is according to what the community has been saying at least. I'm sure they know what they are doing and one thing we all know is that Google actually IS big enough not to fail. But it does seem like the right thing to at least make new developers more aware of the risks. And it is obviously a very stressful time for anyone who is actually making a living off an android app.

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

#133

Post by rs186 »

gdulli wrote: post #34
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.

It doesn't make any difference anyway, does it?

Then I might as well treat myself with better hardware & ecosystem.

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

#134

Post by ACCount37 »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #92
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…

So let's pick a random example app that might be popular on F-Droid today. Oh, I dunno...newpipe. Given that Google both owns Android/Google Play Store and YouTube: what do you think they would do with the developer information of someone who makes an app that skirts their ad-model for YouTube?

I can't help but feel that this move is aimed specifically at ReVanced.

The "security" wording is the usual corpospeak - you can always trust "security" to mean "the security of our business model, of course, why are you asking?"

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

#135

Post by xigoi »

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

The toolbars don’t just magically appear there. They are the product of a technically illiterate user.

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

#136

Post by realusername »

Aachen wrote: post #61
63stack wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same, I'm tempted to call android just a shittier iPhone now

What part of cheaper, better, and open source is shittier exactly?

Cheaper for sure, better maybe but open source certainly not, AOSP doesn't run on a single device on earth, not even the emulators.

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

#137

Post by grep_name »

natch wrote: post #93
RedComet wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are signed, though. Just not by Google.

“Running binaries signed either by yourself or by whoever wants to spy on you.” That last part there is the problem.

It's an excuse. Give me the option to install the software I see fit. Period.

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

#138

Post by xigoi »

pkulak wrote: post #79
Aachen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of cheaper, better, and open source is shittier exactly?

> What part of cheaper The iPhone 17 is the same price as the Pixel 10 > better But the iPhone 17 has better hardware features, like UWB, better cameras, and a _far_ faster CPU. > open source Only if you install Graphene, and then never install anything that requires Google Play Services, which is basically every commercial app.

> The iPhone 17 is the same price as the Pixel 10

Too bad there aren’t any other Android phones…

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

#139

Post by pooyamo »

llbbdd wrote: post #27
_imnothere wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PWAs And I wonder when can we stop lying to ourselves pretending "web"-apps are real (native) apps?

Why?

Can you create and run a service that starts when phone is turned on, with a PWA app? Usecase is a backup daemon.

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

#140

Post by JohnFen »

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…

> currently this is far from 'killing' non-appstore apps for most of the market.

It means that Android is no longer suitable for my own private dev projects.

Post reply on HN