What we talk about when we talk about sideloading • Hacker News Board

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#131

Post by p0w3n3d » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 9:11 PM UTC

api wrote: post #100

cb321 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the situation is worse as this "subscription-esque" model is "spreading" to areas beyond software. Exercise equipment like ellipticals and bicycles - whose software is/could be borderline +/- resistance level trivial - has been moving to "only works with an online subscription" business models for a long time. I mean, I have had instances that controlled resistance with like a manual knob , but these new…

The reason subscriptions are spreading everywhere is that stock markets and private investors usually value recurring revenue at a much higher multiple than non-recurring revenue. The effect can be so large that it can be better to have less recurring revenue than more non-recurring revenue, at least if you are seeking investment or credit. It creates a powerful incentive to seek recurring revenue wherever possible.…

This argument, though true, can be simplified to "investors are greedy so you will pay more". And it's really sad and discouraging

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#132

Post by ptx » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 9:11 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #49

marcprux wrote: post #27

Author here. I admit I am rather startled by the tone of many comments here and the accusations of disingenuity. Splitting hairs about the origin of the term "sideload" does not change the fact that those who promote the term tend to do so in order to make it feel deviant and hacker-ish. You don't "sideload" software on your Linux, Windows, or macOS computer: you install it. You have the right to install whatever you…

>Splitting hairs about the origin of the term "sideload" does not change the fact that those who promote the term tend to do so in order to make it feel deviant and hacker-ish. Can you corroborate this? At least for me, the whole idea that "sideloading" has negative connotations only came up as a result of this debacle, and the only evidence I've seen are some very careful readings of blog posts from Google. The word…

> The word itself hardly has any negative connotations aside from something like "not primary", which might be argued as negative, but is nonetheless correct.

Android has an APK installer built in. Opening an APK file launches the installer and installs the application, just like opening an MSI file on Windows launches built-in Microsoft Installer and installs the application.

Google have gradually added impediments to this over this years, such as a requirement to toggle a checkbox in the settings to enable installation, and later some prompts about letting Google scan the package, but calling the system's built-in application installation mechanism "not primary" is absurd.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#133

Post by the_pwner224 » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 9:11 PM UTC

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.)

> A lot of power users who buy flagships will leave for iPhones if Android ceases to be an open platform.

99.9% of people who use Android have never, and never will, install apps outside the Play Store, and aren't even aware that they can do so.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#134

Post by zb3 » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 9:12 PM UTC

Note that the Android permission system is designed so that you are not in control by design, some permissions are "not for you" and only for "system apps" which you can't control. This gives Google and device manufacturers advantage over third party software developers in the name of security...

I think we should focus on defending the slowly-vanishing ability to unlock the bootloader and fight for the core parts of Android to stay open source.. without these two, installing an APK will mean less and less until it might eventually become synonymous with installing a PWA.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#135

Post by gruez » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 9:12 PM UTC

hypeatei wrote: post #97

gruez wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sure, but they effectively do even if they're not trying to. What specific acts are referring to? Is it just their recent plans to restrict sideloading? This feels circular. "Google is evil because they're trying to restrict sideloading. They're also extra evil because trying to demonize sideloading. How? By restricting sideloading!" >It comes off like you're up to no good or doing something dangerous. Like GP said:…

I think the recent push to restrict "sideloading" made people realize that the term itself helps Google frame it to normies as a fringe, non-standard thing that needs controls around it. When in reality you're just installing software on a device.

>I think the recent push to restrict "sideloading" made people realize that the term itself helps Google frame it to normies as a fringe, non-standard thing that needs controls around it.

No, it made all the pro-sideloading people (for lack of a better term) find any reason to hate google even more, including flimsy arguments about how "sidleoad" is some sort of sinister psyop. I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest "sideload" has any negative connotations to the average "normie", beyond its meaning of "install from third party source"[1]. All I've seen are endless speculation that it's a google psyop in techie/hacker[2] circles, like this post.

[2] as in "hacker" news

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#136

Post by zouhair » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 9:13 PM UTC

The fact that we don't have root access to our phones is insane. This "sideloading" part is just the cherry on top of the dystopia we live in.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#137

Post by kragen » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 9:14 PM UTC

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #113

kragen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Google isn't trying to prevent installing, just "sideloading".

This comment is funny because you have defined these words to be as such You have defined installing to be specifically from play store and sideloading as everything except it. Google isn't trying to prevent installing, just sideloading works in this sentence because of what you have already defined but you are using this sentence in defense of that.... As OP stated, installing can mean on debian as an example, insta…

No, that is not the definition I was using. "Sideloading" is a subset of installing, not disjoint from it. If Google were to prevent installing, it would prevent sideloading, but it would also prevent installing from the Play Store, which clearly they don't want.

It's a very dangerous precedent, but one that's difficult to discuss without having a name for the kind of installing that Google is trying to prevent.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#138

Post by zouhair » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 9:14 PM UTC

terminalshort wrote: post #42

I think this misses the forest for the trees here. The platforms behavior here is a symptom and not the core problem. I think the following are pretty clearly correct: 1. It's your damn phone and you should be able to install whatever the hell you want on it 2. Having an approved channel for verified app loading is a valuable security tool and greatly reduces the number of malicious apps installed on users devices Gi…

I don't trust the Google Play Store.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#139

Post by kragen » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 9:14 PM UTC

realusername wrote: post #104

kragen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Google isn't trying to prevent installing, just "sideloading".

If anything, it's the playstore which is a side channel and the website of the software producer the main one.

That's a good point.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#140

Post by m3adow » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 9:15 PM UTC

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.)

> This segment is what is preventing the “green bubbles = poor” narrative from taking over.

In the US maybe. In Europe, not so much. With Apple having a market share of "only" about one third and WhatsApp being the de facto default messaging app, this discussion never happened here.

Therefore your argument doesn't apply to Europe at all. Android is more than the "hacky" part. Albeit I'd really love to keep that.