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

141–150 of 564 posts

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

#141

Post by heavyset_go »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #127
omnimus wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Go…

And then there will still be complaints about Google limiting what apps can do and take away “your freedom”. What happens when a third party app wants to be able to read in other apps internal storage to create a back up solution like iCloud? Should that be allowed? What about if they want to create an app that autocompletes what you type when working in another app requiring key logger like capabilities?

What part of "I should be able to install software from developer I trust if I want to" was hard to understand?

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

#142

Post by arccy »

jim201 wrote: post #10

Antitrust action is badly needed in this area. It is ridiculous that I need permission from my device manufacturer to install software on hardware I own. There is no viable alternative than to live in Apple and Google’s ecosystems. This duopoly cannot be allowed to keep this much control of the mobile platforms.

you don't need permission for the hardware... you can install your own OS.

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

#143

Post by JetSpiegel »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #38
blaze33 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Will they send letters to sanctioned countries? What about a PO box, or a remailer service?

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

#144

Post by JetSpiegel »

arccy wrote: post #142
jim201 wrote: post #10

Antitrust action is badly needed in this area. It is ridiculous that I need permission from my device manufacturer to install software on hardware I own. There is no viable alternative than to live in Apple and Google’s ecosystems. This duopoly cannot be allowed to keep this much control of the mobile platforms.

you don't need permission for the hardware... you can install your own OS.

Can you, with SecureBoot?

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

#145

Post by preisschild »

JohnFen wrote: post #140
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…

> 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.

You can use GrapheneOS or LineageOS without the Google rootkit and continue installing any apps you want

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

#146

Post by wkat4242 »

dinkleberg wrote: post #123
miclill wrote: post #114

My hope is that this lets some more people wake up and finally make Linux on the smartphone a reality.

If that ever does happen I really hope they just focus on making a proper phone, not trying to make it a hybrid phone and workstation. When they were working on Ubuntu touch (or whatever their phone version was called), they would show off how cool it was that you could just plug your monitor and input devices into it and boom you’ve got an all in one device. But who wants that? It’s cool. But I’d rather just have a…

I certainly want that. I use DeX all the time. It's amazing.

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

#147

Post by mixologic »

gumby271 wrote: post #25
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 dunno man, it doesn't feel like a "huge safety win" that my computer has to check with a singular US tech company before it will let me use any software on it.

That's only sorta how it usually works. The developer has to check with a singular US tech company before they can sign the software they've given you.

Except yeah, the way this android stuff works is closer to that way. Instead of Google giving out a key for signing, they instead ask for one and tie a developer to a namespace, so yeah, I guess your Android phone has to check whether or not that namespace is "in the clear"

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

#148

Post by nubinetwork »

bitpush wrote: post #71
rclkrtrzckr wrote: post #30

> This logic is flawed: historically, we've seen malware slip through the Play Store—signed and “verified”—several times. Yeah, check for all the fake sora apps in the play store.

This is a weak argument. If things have slipped through the cracks with someone actively reviewing it, the alternative cant be 'lets not do any checking whatsoever'. There are better arguments against this that other commenters here have provided (including "my device, my rule") but this isnt a strong argument.

That's the thing, they don't review their apps, and they actively ignore people flagging apps that are scams or otherwise malicious. Much like their ad empire, its all bots and people making money for pretending to care.

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

#150

Post by erinnh »

preisschild wrote: post #145
JohnFen wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You can use GrapheneOS or LineageOS without the Google rootkit and continue installing any apps you want

Considering both Graphene and Lineage have been complaining about google making development harder and harder for how long will that be a possibility?
Post reply on HN