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

171–180 of 564 posts

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

#171

Post by pessimizer »

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.

No, I like F-Droid, but I don't want them to need an official Google status to operate, or for anyone who wants to compete with F-Droid to have to obtain that special status.

edit: because the next step would be Google paying F-Droid a half-billion dollars for default search engine placement, or something else stupid. It becomes a captured organization, an excuse subsidiary.

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

#172

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

heavyset_go wrote: post #141
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Then you don’t want sandboxing if you want all of those permissions.

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

#173

Post by JohnFen »

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

My devices are not supported by either of those, sadly.

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

#174

Post by fainpul »

fareesh wrote: post #149

from what i understand: - if you compile from source and deploy via adb nothing changes - if you use a closed source binary, the identity of the owner becomes mandatory so the issue is anonymously published closed source software?

> if you compile from source and deploy via adb nothing changes

That's not how I understand it. Do you have a source?

"Starting in September 2026, Android will require all apps to be registered by verified developers in order to be installed on certified Android devices."

https://developer.android.com/developer-verification

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

#175

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

xigoi wrote: post #135
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes because technically literate users shouldn’t have trusted mainstream companies to not install bundle ware back in the Day? They shouldn’t have trusted Zoom not to install a web server on Macs surreptitiously that caused a vulnerability? They shouldn’t have searched Google for printer drivers not knowing that it was a fake printer driver? They shouldn’t have trusted Facebook when they installed VPN software that tracked all of their traffic from any app?

Is that really your answer? To make the phone ecosystem as fraught as Windows PCs for the average user? How is they worked out for PC users since the 80s?

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

#176

Post by marcosdumay »

billev2k wrote: post #11

The Android Developer Blog called it "an ID check at the airport which confirms a traveler's identity but is separate from the security screening of their bags." From the mouths of rubes, I guess. The ID check at the airport has zero to do with safety or security and everything to do with the airlines' business model (no secondary market for tickets), enforced by government.

Nope. Most of the world does the ID check, and it's recommended by the UN guidelines for security reasons.

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

#177

Post by floxy »

sfdlkj3jk342a wrote: post #12
kypro wrote: post #9

As someone who doesn't really care about apps, if I wanted to move away from Android what phones and OSs are worth considering?

GrapheneOS on a Pixel

Does anyone have a rough estimate for how many installation of GrapheneOS there are?

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

#178

Post by dangus »

stronglikedan wrote: post #159
array_key_first wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not by much these days. The Pixel 10 actually gives you half the storage as the iPhone 17 at the same price.

The only Android phones that are significantly cheaper than equivalent iPhone tend to come with some kind of compromise (and don’t forget that Apple’s phones start at $600 - the iPhone 16e exists).

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

#179

Post by GeekyBear »

If you focus on the fact that Google fraudulently marketed an operating system that allows users to run any software they like (until they successfully drove other open options out of the marketplace) you have all the legal justification you need to force Google to back down.

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

#180

Post by dangus »

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.

I think this isn’t true at all, before the iPhone existed cellular carriers controlled software on consumer phones.

Remember when GPS navigation was a $5/month app that was a cellular plan addon?

Post reply on HN