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

221–230 of 564 posts

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

#221

Post by kube-system »

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.

What country requires that?

In the US, there's no requirement for a company to honor the claims of prior advertisements for things that they might do in the future for a different product. And even if a company does lie about the features of their product, advertising law does not require a company to change the features of their product to meet those claims. What could be required is a change in the advertising, or a refund for people who bought the devices under the false terms.

But if you advertise a certain side of feature features in a phone three years ago, and sell something completely different next year, that's entirely legal.

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

#222

Post by gumby271 »

mixologic wrote: post #147
gumby271 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's only sorta how it usually works. The developer has to check with a singular US tech company before they can sign the software they've given you. Except yeah, the way this android stuff works is closer to that way. Instead of Google giving out a key for signing, they instead ask for one and tie a developer to a namespace, so yeah, I guess your Android phone has to check whether or not that namespace is "in the…

Right, Google could revoke that signature at any time and my device would refuse to install that software. The exact mechanics don't really matter, the end result is the same, my device will only install software that one company approves of and can change at any time, huge win for security right?

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

#224

Post by mouse_ »

arccy wrote: post #142
jim201 wrote: post #10

Antitrust action is badly needed in this area. It is ridiculous that I need permission from my device manufacturer to install software on hardware I own. There is no viable alternative than to live in Apple and Google’s ecosystems. This duopoly cannot be allowed to keep this much control of the mobile platforms.

you don't need permission for the hardware... you can install your own OS.

Not if you don't have permission to install your own OS...

Didn't Google recently kill AOSP and stop providing board support packages for their phones?

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

#225

Post by sudo_and_pray »

ohman876 wrote: post #59

I know this is side topic but if buying the Android or iPhone hardware gives us hardware we don't control, then what alternatives we realistically have? I do own pinephone (and I was recently reading that they kinda staled with development of new phones hardware), I know about librem.. is there anything else on the market?

Probably Linux phones, they are not there yet, but maybe by the time Android becomes an iOS it will be there.

Problem will be with banking apps and such, well you can get an used iphone and in lockdown mode it should be fine even if it reaches EoL.

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

#226

Post by krabizzwainch »

terminalshort wrote: post #218
pkulak wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Mine was better until Google kept forcing AI sharpening and making things look worse.

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

#227

Post by kube-system »

miclill wrote: post #114

My hope is that this lets some more people wake up and finally make Linux on the smartphone a reality.

Yeah, all you need to add is a desktop environment and some kernel drivers that are specific for phone hardware.... except that's what AOSP already is.

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

#228

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

ptrl600 wrote: post #213
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

So now you are expecting users to navigate hundreds of permissions and know the consequences of each one? How did that work out for Vista?

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

#229

Post by ycombinatrix »

bitpush wrote: post #71
rclkrtrzckr wrote: post #30

> This logic is flawed: historically, we've seen malware slip through the Play Store—signed and “verified”—several times. Yeah, check for all the fake sora apps in the play store.

This is a weak argument. If things have slipped through the cracks with someone actively reviewing it, the alternative cant be 'lets not do any checking whatsoever'. There are better arguments against this that other commenters here have provided (including "my device, my rule") but this isnt a strong argument.

That would make sense except they aren't doing any app reviews lol. They're just scanning your government ID. It is a farce.

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

#230

Post by spogbiper »

JohnFen wrote: post #209
gabrielhidasy wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

True, although using adb requires the use of the usb port, which for some of my projects is highly impractical. Also, with this move, Google has made it very clear that they don't want people to have any real control over their machines -- so I'm not inclined to think that using adb to work around the problem will always be possible. It's fine, though. My hobby projects will continue into the future, just probably wi…

I didn't think a usb port was required since the introduction of wifi adb?

https://www.androidpolice.com/use-wireless-adb-android-phone...

Post reply on HN