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

271–280 of 564 posts

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

#271

Post by insane_dreamer »

ncr100 wrote: post #112
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.

How about "unlocked install"? Consumers are already familiar with what a "locked phone" is.

Sounds too much like illegal jailbreaking. Direct install better IMO

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

#272

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

ptrl600 wrote: post #263
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“Besides that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?”

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

#273

Post by velocity3230 »

moffkalast wrote: post #21
sfdlkj3jk342a wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GrapheneOS on a Pixel

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.

They're in discussions with an OEM to produce their own device.

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

#274

Post by zb3 »

barbs wrote: post #185

I imagine custom ROMs would be able to work around this restriction, but I wonder if simply rooting the phone would also allow you to switch it off?

Yes, this verification will be implemented in the OS but not in the TEE, so rooting does give you the ability to affect it.

But Google is working hard to make sure important apps won't work anymore due to their "Play Integrity" crap.

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

#275

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#276

Post by holoduke »

I really would love to get rid of everything related to Google, Microsoft and Apple. Too bad I am completely depending on them. Business wise and privately. I wish I would wake up tomorrow with a Linux phone with no crippleware, no notifications, no crappy animations, no limits, no nothing.

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

#277

Post by CharlesW »

SoftTalker wrote: post #98
like_any_other wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Apple will change those "warnings" into straight-up lies, and fail to mention the user can override them, and hide those overrides in non-discoverable places: Whenever I try to open an unverified app, this popup comes up saying "[AppName] Not Opened" "Apple could not verify [AppName] is free of malware that may harm your Mac or compromise your privacy." Then there's only two options to either press "Done" or "Mov…

This also implies that Apple does verify that app store apps are free from malware, when that's not the case. It only verifies that they are from a developer who paid the fee and whose apps pass Apple's automated screens.

Apple does verify that App Store apps are free from known malware. https://support.apple.com/guide/security/about-app-store-sec...

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

#278

Post by 0_gravitas »

divegeek wrote: post #244
freefaler wrote: post #60

Yes, it's a very unfriendly decision by Google. However, I don't think they haven't measured the number of users installing apps outside of the Play store. May be they just don't care about the small % of total users who are a large % here on HN. This is a part of a bigger trend, Cory Doctorow spoke about 13 years ago in his "The coming war on general computing": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg And this w…

It's unfriendly to developers and power users, but very friendly to the other 99.999% of users. I used to work for Google, on Android security, and it's an ongoing philosophical debate: How much risk do you expose typical users to in the name of preserving the rights and capabilities of the tiny base of power users? Both are important but at some point the typical users have to win because there are far, far more of…

But those 99.999% of users won't be using F-droid or direct-installs to begin with.

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

#279

Post by NotPractical »

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.

You keep repeating this argument, but it doesn't hold up upon critical examination.

I already replied here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45512015

I think the reason you keep reiterating this is because once you realize that there is no legal justification to go after Google for this move under current US law, the only real solution becomes obvious: new legislation, and you really don't want that, because you know it will apply to Apple devices as well, which would be The End of the World.

If you want to see what the solution to this problem looks like, take a look at the bipartisan App Store Freedom Act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3209...

(This is before Apple/Google lobbying efforts result in either the death of the bill or a bunch of exceptions allowing companies to do "notarization" or "developer verification".)

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

#280

Post by vayup »

gumby271 wrote: post #261
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?

No, I am not flexing. I am just stating a fact.

FWIW, I am also pissed that there are only two mainstream options.

Post reply on HN