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

251–260 of 564 posts

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

#251

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

detectivestory wrote: post #26
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…

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 so…

To wit, there is only one business playbook with two strategies: When you are weak, make friends. When you are strong, make war.

Android used to be weak against iPhone and needed to cooperate, so they allowed more apps in to grow the userbase. Now that they're big and strong, they don't need allies, so they start kicking out everyone who isn't making them money.

Every "enshittified" service does it - Imgur, Reddit, whatever. Everyone selling $10 bills for $9 does it. Microsoft did it. They took a step backwards by buying GitHub, when they realized they were totally blowing it on cloud. But now that they have users stuck on GitHub and VS Code, they're defecting again.

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

#252

Post by dandellion »

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 suspect the average computer user is significantly smarter than the average phone user. The reason is that I've never seen a really dumb person using a computer, but I've seen plenty using phones. That might (or might not) be related to why the phone ecosystem evolved the way it did and computers didn't end up like that.

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

#253

Post by kube-system »

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

You could certainly say that. But if you go up to a normal person on the street and say "Google has prevented you from installing apps on your phone", while they're still able to install from Google Play just fine, they're going to look at you like a crackhead.

Language is for conveying information to other people. If your audience doesn't understand what you're saying, you're effectively screaming into the void.

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

#254

Post by vayup »

Dare I say it, I think we're being too harsh on Google here.

When you own a massively successful consumer product like Android, which is foundational to users' lives, you have an obligation to your users to keep them safe*. Sometimes you will have to choose between protecting users who don't know what they are doing at the expense of limiting users who know what they are doing. In this case, they have chosen to err on the side of the former.

I get it. It's OK to not like this development, especially if you use a lot of sideloaded apps. However, if you call this "anti-consumer", then perhaps you and Google have different notions of who the consumers are.

All said and done, Android/Pixel is still the most open mobile platform. Users are still free to install other AOSP-based OSes such as Graphene OS, which have no such restrictions on sideloading.

PS: I'm a former Google employee. I don't think I am a Google shill. I worked on mobile security, but I was not involved on this matter.

* I am using "safety" as a catch all for privacy and security as well.

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

#255

Post by cons0le »

xandrius wrote: post #245
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.

Check UbuntuTouch, it's really a nice third option. The OS is refreshing and the dev community active. We do not have to choose the lesser of two evils this time.

I wonder if banking and messaging apps will work on it in the future

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

#256

Post by xp84 »

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…

> takes 10 seconds to show anything when I search through my phones settings

Ah, I see ol' Google's been shamelessly copying Apple again.

Unrelated but related to embarrassingly-bad search: On my iPhone, I have a Hacker News reader app called Octal. Now when I search the phone itself for "octal" (like I do to launch most apps), sometimes the only result found is... the Octal entry under Settings (where iOS sticks the permission-granting interface for notifications, location, etc.) Can't find the app itself. Just the settings for it.

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

#257

Post by estimator7292 »

jamesnorden wrote: post #169
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.

>I may as well switch and be able to use iMessage and FaceTime with them I, too, love vendor lockin.

I mean, we have mandatory Play Store services, so the experience on android is not significantly less locked-in.

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

#259

Post by kube-system »

charles_f wrote: post #167

It's a puzzle to me how Google moves to restrain app install out of its store, while Apple loses in court for similar practices.

This change would make Google's policies in line with the policies Apple has recently implemented to comply with those court orders you're talking about.

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

#260

Post by opan »

estimator7292 wrote: post #257
jamesnorden wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I may as well switch and be able to use iMessage and FaceTime with them I, too, love vendor lockin.

I mean, we have mandatory Play Store services, so the experience on android is not significantly less locked-in.

LineageOS without gapps (no microg even) works fine. Very few apps require play services. I think everything from F-Droid works.
Post reply on HN