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

151–160 of 564 posts

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

#151

Post by JohnTHaller »

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 side-load signed apps. It's a similar limitation to macOS which won't let you run apps that Apple hasn't signed without command line or control panel shenanigans. Compared to iOS, Android still has the advantage of installing your own full browser (like Firefox) with full-fat ad blocking (uBlock Origin, not Lite). iOS is Safari-only right now though, in theory, some alternative engines may be available in Europe later.

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

#152

Post by mixologic »

throw10920 wrote: post #56
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…

> eliminating the ability of our devices from running any old code it downloads and runs is a huge safety win No, this is just false. There's numerous, well-documented instances of malware making it past gatekeepers security checks. This move is exclusively about Google asserting control over users and developers and has nothing to do with security or safety. The only "huge safety win" comes from designing more secur…

Thats a false equivalency. I didnt say that software was safe because its been checked. Just that at the least, one can somewhat figure out where the software came from.

Getting a DUNS number obviously doesn't make it so that you cant publish malware. It just provides a level of traceability/obstacle that slows down the process of distributing malware.

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

#153

Post by bigbadfeline »

znort_ wrote: post #15
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.

indeed, but they're not talking about your phone, they're talking about android, which is something you don't buy nor own, you buy a license to use it on the provider's terms. linux phones can't come soon enough ... your point about the termn "sideloading" is spot on, though. perverting the language is the first step of manipulation: installing software is "sideloading", sharing files is "piracy", legitimate resistan…

> linux phones can't come soon enough ...

That would require a lot tighter and broader (but not corp-controlled) organization than what open source is accustomed to - making cheap and capable phones that aren't tied to a big corp is big challenge.

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

#154

Post by rangestransform »

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.

> and a _far_ faster CPU.

No longer true with the newest chip that Mediatek cooked up, ARM licensed cores like C1 are catching up rapidly with Apple CPUs (or maybe Apple has hit the limit of their current design philosophy)

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

#155

Post by JohnTHaller »

omnimus wrote: post #31
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…

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…

It's normal for Windows and *nix, not for modern macOS which has big limitations on unsigned apps requiring command line and control panel shenanigans.

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

#156

Post by TuringTest »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #151
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 side-load signed apps. It's a similar limitation to macOS which won't let you run apps that Apple hasn't signed without command line or control panel shenanigans. Compared to iOS, Android still has the advantage of installing your own full browser (like Firefox) with full-fat ad blocking (uBlock Origin, not Lite). iOS is Safari-only right now though, in theory, some alternative engines may be available…

If they need to be signed by Google, that's not side loading by definition; it's using an alternate Google channel.

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

#157

Post by nosianu »

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.

That physical address will be useless, and probably easily worked around, in many if not most countries. Expecting Google to be able to use that address together with the law is a pretty US-centric expectation. I don't think most virus creators would be impacted, especially not the ones that are part of professional (criminal or government) organizations.

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

#158

Post by laxd »

ncr100 wrote: post #112
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.

Unfortunately not. They are calling it "phone" and ("rooted phone" or "unlocked phone").

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

#159

Post by stronglikedan »

array_key_first wrote: post #100
Aachen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

1. Not cheaper. 2. I think it's better, I like the UX but that's subjective. 3. Not open source. AOSP is open source. Android is not open source.

It's certainly cheaper when you compare phones with like specs.

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

#160

Post by generic92034 »

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.

Is this not a meaningless differentiation if Google does no assume any responsibility for apps on the Play Store?
Post reply on HN