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

211–220 of 564 posts

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

#211

Post by whycome »

lieks wrote: post #207
JohnTHaller wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can install full uBlock Origin in the Orion browser, on iOS. It also has decent built-in ad blocking (though uBlock Origin is still better). I had been thinking for a long time to switch to Android (GrapheneOS, probably) when my current iPhone 13 dies, but this whole thing with "sideloading" on Android is making me reconsider. If I can't have the freedom I want either way, might as well get longer support, polish…

How did Orion sidestep the safari WebKit requirements?

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

#212

Post by palata »

lieks wrote: post #207
JohnTHaller wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can install full uBlock Origin in the Orion browser, on iOS. It also has decent built-in ad blocking (though uBlock Origin is still better). I had been thinking for a long time to switch to Android (GrapheneOS, probably) when my current iPhone 13 dies, but this whole thing with "sideloading" on Android is making me reconsider. If I can't have the freedom I want either way, might as well get longer support, polish…

Well GrapheneOS is not Google-certified, so it is not impacted by this :-).

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

#213

Post by ptrl600 »

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.

Sure I do. I sandbox what I want when I want.

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

#214

Post by surajrmal »

constantcrying wrote: post #194
Aachen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Over the last years Android has gotten increasingly worse, which is something you just have to expect from a Google product. It is still unbelievable to me that Google is shipping a product which takes 10 seconds to show anything when I search through my phones settings. What are they doing? >open source Sure. If you buy the right phone you get some open source components. Of course half the Android companies are try…

Everything in settings loads near instantly for me including search. What exactly has gotten worse with Android recently?

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

#215

Post by ethbr1 »

rs186 wrote: post #133
gdulli wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't make any difference anyway, does it? Then I might as well treat myself with better hardware & ecosystem.

Better hardware, yes.

But you'll be reminded quickly how comparatively shit Apple's software is.

Aka the litany of "Oh, yeah, everyone knows that's broken but just deals with it, because there's no way to fix issues on a closed platform other than {wait for Apple}."

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

#216

Post by cnity »

_ea1k wrote: post #201
JohnTHaller wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Agreed. While I do not like this move, ti is weird to me how far people are going in their criticism. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

"The perfect should not be the enemy of the good" is the wrong analogy here. It's more like "death by a thousand cuts". Limitations on free computer usage are like a ratcheting mechanism: they mostly go in one direction.

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

#217

Post by ptx »

dangus wrote: post #180
gdulli wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Only phones sold by carriers were controlled by carriers. You could easily (in Europe at least) buy an unlocked phone and put in a SIM from any carrier of your choice. You could then easily install (i.e. "sideload") Java apps from anywhere you wanted, e.g. from a storage card or over Bluetooth, although some permissions were restricted unless you bought an expensive code-signing certificate.

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

#218

Post by terminalshort »

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.

In terms of cameras, my pixel takes way better pictures than any iphone, and people I know with iphones (which is basically everyone) admit it.

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

#219

Post by Croak »

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!

Thats a recent addition; hope consumer protection laws around the world become better.

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

#220

Post by moffkalast »

floxy wrote: post #182
moffkalast wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Truly the OS by and for people who are into excessive nitpicking. I suppose that's what you want for security.
Post reply on HN