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

181–190 of 564 posts

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

#181

Post by koolala »

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…

What your describing isn't "side-loading". Doing that means the apps go through Google's chain of control. Please don't let them redefine the word.

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

#182

Post by floxy »

moffkalast wrote: post #21
sfdlkj3jk342a wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GrapheneOS on a Pixel

It's kind of ironic that you have to actually give Google money in order to not use Android. I'm still amazed that there's no Graphene support for any other device.

Graphene is still Android.

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

#183

Post by koolala »

brazukadev wrote: post #3
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.

> Installing any app I want outside the Play Store was the primary reason I decided to go with Android You still can do that with PWAs in Android. Let's see for how long.

There is a big difference between Websites and Applications. Websites are a smaller subset of capabilities.

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

#184

Post by gabrielhidasy »

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.

If it's for your own projects, for yourself only, ADB still works without this verification.

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

#186

Post by floxy »

bitpush wrote: post #70
casenmgreen wrote: post #51

This is the beginning of the end of Android. Google have over-reached. It is unacceptable to software developers to be unable to install software on their own phones, and this will lead to a successor to Android. It will take time, but it will now happen.

> beginning of the end of Android. You underestimate how much money & effort it takes to make an operating system.

Wouldn't people just fork AOSP? Seems like GrapheneOS has a running start?

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

#187

Post by dangus »

GeekyBear wrote: post #179

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.

This is a massive stretch. What marketing campaign said that?

And even if it did, it’s not like marketing campaigns make claims that last forever.

Red Lobster doesn’t owe you anything because endless crab legs isn’t a thing anymore.

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

#188

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#189

Post by numpad0 »

bigwheels wrote: post #105
tomall wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the term "direct install" which someone suggested in one of the previous threads.

Or just "install". This word was sufficient my entire life until the Apple App Store came along and hijacked it. "Why should I change my name? He's the one who sucks" https://youtube.com/watch?v=ADgS_vMGgzY&t=3s

Would it be possible to exclude app store install from "Install", eg swapping positions with sideloading? The idea would be that "app store sideloads" are more like enabling features than installing something novel, and installs allow something unplanned to be enabled.

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

#190

Post by heavyset_go »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #172
heavyset_go wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can have sandboxing and run whatever you want. I do it every day on PCs where I, the user, can define the terms of sandboxing any appliclation I want, and not a trillion dollar corporation using sandboxes to enforce their chosen revenue streams upon users.
Post reply on HN