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

261–270 of 564 posts

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

#261

Post by gumby271 »

vayup wrote: post #254

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 o…

> Android/Pixel is still the most open mobile platform

There are 2 options in this space (practically). Being better than Apple, who is explicit about the fact that they own every iPhone on the planet, is not a flex.

Do you think Apple is being reckless not doing the same thing on MacOS, Microsoft on Windows? Is the population too stupid to be permitted general purpose computers?

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

#262

Post by andrepd »

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.

Especially when partaking in the duopoly is literally mandatory for life: banking, government services, basic communication, etc.

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

#263

Post by ptrl600 »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #228
ptrl600 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, if you bother with the rigmarole of escaping walled garden then you should be expected to navigate 20-30 permissions, which is in practice all that's necessary.

If users without that level of technical skill are pressured into making those decisions, that's because they're being mistreated.

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

#264

Post by zmmmmm »

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.

if anything, installing the app spoon fed to you by your phone OS provider should get the pejorative.

Let's calling, "Lameloading" or something to really nail it home.

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

#265

Post by MattyRad »

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 glanced at Ubuntu Touch, but its device compatibility looked severely lacking (https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/).... I have old Pixel phones I could potentially try it out on, but the last Pixel phone that is officially supported is the 3a. So that is a bummer.

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

#266

Post by Rohansi »

array_key_first wrote: post #100
Aachen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

1. Not cheaper. 2. I think it's better, I like the UX but that's subjective. 3. Not open source. AOSP is open source. Android is not open source.

You can definitely get cheaper Android phones than an iPhone. There will be compromises but it will be cheaper. Many people are fine with a $200 or less phone.

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

#267

Post by observationist »

calgoo wrote: post #232
observationist wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Seems like setting up a shareable wifi6 hotspot should be trivial, in this scenario - either a wifi 6 usb dongle or an m2 board like Intel WiFi 6 AX200/210 , can turn on hotspot mode for other devices.

WRT banking, you'd just use the browser - the whole point is to get away from the whole 'you need to spend $150/month and subscribe to a device and open yourself up to a whole suite of third parties in order to use an "app"'

You could use AI to build convenience scripts and UI tweaks, depending on your use case. Use tampermonkey or other script engine browser tools if you need to recreate a UI feature that a banking app provides.

I can build a much better machine for less than a flagship phone costs me, including video glasses and a few power packs. A wireless video stream to a dumbed down phone that only serves as the interface for swype style keyboard or something like that would also be an option - I think this might be a viable strategy.

I've seen raspberry pi phones and tablets that would absolutely terrify TSA agents, but I'm thinking more along the lines of a modded framework laptop with display hacks, or a boxy little pocket PC with a chonky battery - nothing that would alarm people unnecessarily.

I think I mostly take issue with the idea that the walled garden is necessary, or even preferable. Google at least had the barest shred of "the user has control" left - eliminating sideloading just eliminated any possible reason I would bother with them as a company.

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

#268

Post by Rohansi »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #248
claytongulick wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Backup, file sync, and chat... very common and important use cases. Not everything can start with a user request.

You shouldn't need a service running all the time for chat. Just use push notifications.

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

#269

Post by noarchy »

vivalahn wrote: post #170
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.

Another road that leads to BBM it seems. It’s utterly bizarre how BBM could have been the iMessage and WhatsApp and who knows what else. But rich out-of-touch people thinking exclusivity is a perk in a commodities market just shows how business savvy and wealth are in reality disconnected from eachother.

We got BBM on Android and iOS. Alas, by then it was mostly too late. It got some initial traction but that didn't last.

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

#270

Post by bl4kers »

vayup wrote: post #254

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 o…

AOSP is starting to be locked down. Google's idea of promoting safety is charging developers for recognition. When there's a profit incentive involved, no, we are not being "too harsh"
Post reply on HN