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

21–30 of 564 posts

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

#21

Post by moffkalast »

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

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.

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

#22

Post by la_fayette »

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

Let's see what will the future of Graphene be, since Google is not publishing the device tree anymore for Pixel devices...

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

#23

Post by viernullvier »

alejoar wrote: post #16
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.

I wonder where the term started? Android itself calls it "install" when you open an APK file, there's not mention of "sideload" in Android at all as far as I can tell.

There is, actually, but in a different context. The `adb sideload` command allows you to boot a device from an image without flashing it.

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

#24

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

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…

There is a world of difference between "the OS throws up a bunch of warnings" and "the OS won't let you run unsigned software"

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

#25

Post by gumby271 »

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.

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

#26

Post by detectivestory »

jadbox wrote: post #7
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 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…

From a quick glance at /r/GooglePlayDeveloper/ it looks like Google is just as interested in killing playstore apps! It seems that they only want to support the existing larger apps now. I think they are giving a clear message to developers that its not really worth developing for that platform anymore. I think we will all agree that the playstore needed a purge but they seem to be making it impossible for any new solo devs at this point.

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

#27

Post by llbbdd »

_imnothere wrote: post #5
brazukadev wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> PWAs And I wonder when can we stop lying to ourselves pretending "web"-apps are real (native) apps?

Why?

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

#28

Post by wiether »

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.

And in the EU you can install apps outside of the AppStore on your iPhone!

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

#29

Post by gumby271 »

wiether wrote: post #28
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.

And in the EU you can install apps outside of the AppStore on your iPhone!

But not outside of Apple's control, they have a very similar mechanism to this verification process with 3rd party app stores.
Post reply on HN