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

231–240 of 564 posts

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

#231

Post by all2 »

vbezhenar wrote: post #206
dangus wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Try Xiaomi.

I did. I cannot recommend it. There is no real way to unlock bootloaders on these. They've locked it down so much that you can't really do anything but run what they give you.

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

#232

Post by calgoo »

observationist wrote: post #96
chasil wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Time to figure out how to live without a phone - gotta find some sort of ultramobile pocket pc with 5G and run your own FreePBX for text and calling, etc. I've been wanting to do this forever, anyway. Using Starlink 5G would make it palatable, or maybe even preferable, assuming the performance is solid.

I have been thinking of secondary machine that would just use my phones wifi and encrypted vpn tunnels. Basically, the phone is only used for the banking app and whatever future government ID app will be required.

The secondary device would basically be built on a open platform etc. Once we can't use the phone for sharing the connection, then we are basically stuck using other wireless connections, LoRa for short to medium connections, direct wifi links and offline home cloud environments. It gets a bit grim when you think about it, but there are always options. Now, would you travel with a home made tablet phone in an airport for example? What a about a train station with xray scanners. Cyberpunk always comes to mind as well when thinking of these possible futures.

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

#233

Post by kube-system »

nubinetwork wrote: post #148
bitpush wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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's the thing, they don't review their apps, and they actively ignore people flagging apps that are scams or otherwise malicious. Much like their ad empire, its all bots and people making money for pretending to care.

The number of malicious apps that Google has removed from the Play Store is far from zero.

It is false to say they are great at it. It's also false to say they don't review it. They remove some, but they're not great at it.

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

#235

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

getpokedagain wrote: post #198
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

You are missing the part where the OS provider is the virus and keylogger. Unless of course you feel it reasonable that google and apple datamine everything you type via their software keyboard[0] or reading the contents of your notifications via play services[1]. 0 - https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/16046-google-keyboard-w-net... 1 - https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/sandboxed-google-play-pr...

You mean if you run an OS made by a company whose whole profit model is based on tracking users so they can advertise to you is invading your privacy?

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

#236

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

heavyset_go wrote: post #190
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes and for you to think that is a valid argument for a consumer product is why most open source products suck for consumers and end up being about as bad as the “homermobile”.

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

#237

Post by HiPhish »

znort_ wrote: post #15
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.

indeed, but they're not talking about your phone, they're talking about android, which is something you don't buy nor own, you buy a license to use it on the provider's terms. linux phones can't come soon enough ... your point about the termn "sideloading" is spot on, though. perverting the language is the first step of manipulation: installing software is "sideloading", sharing files is "piracy", legitimate resistan…

> which is something you don't buy nor own, you buy a license to use it on the provider's terms

The distinction between "own" and "license" is purely a legal one. If I buy a kitchen table I own it, I can chop it up and use the pieces to make my own furniture and sell it. When I buy a copy of a Super Mario game I cannot rip the sprites and make my own Super Mario game because I don't own the copyright nor trademark of Super Mario. But I do own the copy, and Nintendo does not get to march into my home and smash my games because they want me to buy the new one instead of playing my old ones.

> linux phones can't come soon enough GNU/Linux. I used to think Stallman was being petty for insisting on the "GNU" part, but nowadays I understand why he insists on calling it GNU/Linux. There is nothing less "Linux" about Android than Debian, Arch or any other GNU/Linux distro, but GNU/Linux is fundamentally different in terms of user freedom from Android.

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

#238

Post by claytongulick »

pooyamo wrote: post #139
llbbdd wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Can you create and run a service that starts when phone is turned on, with a PWA app? Usecase is a backup daemon.

Does every app need to do this?

I make lots of "real" healthcare apps that are PWAs.

Much better installation and user experience, no dev cert nonsense, brain dead simple updates, no app store, etc...

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

#239

Post by kube-system »

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.

If that actually were the case, the iPhone would've died in 2007.

In reality, most people don't even know what sideloading is. Those are the people who are buying phones and supporting the market for their existence.

The 0.001% of people who want to side load applications onto their phone, can clamor for a new OS all they want, but unless they put the resources in place to make that happen, it won't.

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

#240

Post by HiPhish »

api wrote: post #101
ta1243 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when in reality it is what we have been able to do on our computers since forever You do realise that's been changing right? Slowly of course, there's no single villain that James Bond could take down, or that a charistmatic leader could get elected could change. The oil tanker has been moving in that direction for decades. There are legions defending the right to run your own software, but it's a continual war of…

> The vast majority of people on this site (especially those who entered the industry post dot-com crash) ridicule Stallman. I've been in tech and startup culture for over a thousand programmer-years (25-30 normal years). It wasn't dot-com or the crash. It was mobile. The mobile ecosystem has always been user-hostile and built around the exploitation of the customer rather than serving the customer. When the huge mob…

> I'm not sure why this is

I think a big reason was customers' ignorance. The manufacturers can come up with whatever they want, if no one buys it it does not matter. People accepted locked-down smartphones because they saw them a phones first and foremost. If I recall correctly the iPhone released without any app store, so it was really not that different from a dumb cell phone. If you had offered those same people a desktop PC or laptop that you could not install your own programs on, that had no file explorer, that could barely connect to anything else no one would have bought it. But because they say smart phones as telephones first it flew over their head. How many of the people who are upgrading to Windows 11 now because of lack of security support are still running an outdated smartphone? The phone probably has more sensitive data on it than the PC by now.

People are willing to accept restrictions when they come with newer technology. Why is that? I don't know, I'm just reporting on what I see.

Post reply on HN