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

301–310 of 564 posts

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

#301

Post by vanviegen »

vivalahn wrote: post #208
stackskipton wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BBM could have been great lock in IF OS and Hardware experience was not so bad. For vast majority, Android vs iPhone is not massively different so iMessage availability is a draw for some people.

BBM itself should not have been a lock-in. It would have taken incredibly little effort to open it as a desktop messenger that can seamlessly interact with people who have BBM numbers for example. I doubt they learned their lessons. Apple walked all over them in so many ways and, if memory serves me right, they even mocked Steve Jobs over the iPhone. Edit: just so I’m clear I’m discussing it from the perspective of e…

> they even mocked Steve Jobs over the iPhone.

Isn't that just doing their jobs as executives for a competitor?

Though internally, one would hope they were sounding some alarm bells. Though at the time, it wasn't at all obvious that people could get used to doing relatively serious typing on a small (even tiny back then) virtual keyboard.

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

#302

Post by j45 »

jadbox wrote: post #7
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.

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…

It makes sense for average users to have identifiable traceability.

Developers, and power users often pre-date these kinds of smartphones.

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

#303

Post by GeekyBear »

kube-system wrote: post #221
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…

It's certainly possible for the same company to create an open platform in addition to a separate platform that is a walled garden.

Microsoft Windows is an open platform that is open to running whatever software you want, while Xbox is a walled garden.

That doesn't mean that Google can fraudulently market an open platform and then close it after driving competing platforms out of the market without running afoul of antitrust law.

However, if Google wants to create a new platform that is a walled garden, as long as they are honest with users about what they are selling, that would be perfectly legal everywhere except the EU.

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

#304

Post by XorNot »

ronsor wrote: post #294
IshKebab wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah... Does it support WhatsApp? If not that's a deal-breaker in most of the world.

Most of the world loves being shackled by a Meta product for some reason. The allegiance to WhatsApp is mindbending.

Signal desperately needs "Signal for Business".

Sell a way for businesses to send trusted communications to their customers in sensitive industries - i.e. healthcare would be a big one.

They need both an actual revenue stream, but also that sort of professional messaging can drive adoption which ultimately furthers the Signal mission.

Plus all those things could desperately use good secure messaging systems.

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

#305

Post by seanw444 »

If nothing prevents this from happening, then when it does happen, I will make it a point to carry nothing but a laptop and a dumb phone, maybe a hotspot. If I need something from the internet, I will get it before the trip. If I can't get it on the trip, and forgot to beforehand, I will either find another way, or not do whatever it is.

I don't know why I don't do that now, honestly. Sounds pretty interesting.

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

#306

Post by GeekyBear »

NotPractical wrote: post #279
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…

Sorry, but when you create an open platform, you are choosing to create a new market where antitrust law will apply.

Google has to live with the consequences of it's decisions.

Open platforms mean more growth more quickly, but they also place restrictions on what you are allowed to do in the future.

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

#307

Post by orangecat »

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…

It was mobile. The mobile ecosystem has always been user-hostile and built around the exploitation of the customer rather than serving the customer.

Right. It was infuriating when those of us criticizing the iPhone's restrictions were told "it's just a phone, who cares", when it was clear that mobile computing was going to take over quickly.

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

#308

Post by Wowfunhappy »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #175
xigoi wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The toolbars don’t just magically appear there. They are the product of a technically illiterate user.

Yes because technically literate users shouldn’t have trusted mainstream companies to not install bundle ware back in the Day? They shouldn’t have trusted Zoom not to install a web server on Macs surreptitiously that caused a vulnerability? They shouldn’t have searched Google for printer drivers not knowing that it was a fake printer driver? They shouldn’t have trusted Facebook when they installed VPN software that t…

Technically illiterate users should leave the default security settings enabled.

In the modern day, I actually think this mostly works? Are you aware of instances where normies installed Windows malware because they purposefully disabled Windows Defender?

Everyone always talks about the "Dancing Bunnies Problem" but I'm not convinced it's actually a thing.

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

#309

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

orangecat wrote: post #299
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because technically literate users shouldn’t have trusted mainstream companies to not install bundle ware back in the Day? They shouldn’t have trusted Zoom not to install a web server on Macs surreptitiously that caused a vulnerability? They shouldn’t have searched Google for printer drivers not knowing that it was a fake printer driver? They shouldn’t have trusted Facebook when they installed VPN software that t…

How is they worked out for PC users since the 80s? Just to be clear, are you claiming that we would be better off if PC hardware and OS vendors had the level of control that smartphone vendors do today?

For almost every user - yes. If apps had to run in a strict sandbox it would be better for most users. Where it would make you jump through an incredible number of hoops or even install “developer editions” of operating systems.

You really can’t trust developers to do the right thing - even major developers like Zoom (the secret web server) , Facebook (the VPN that trashed usage actoss apps on iOS) and Google (convincing consumers to install corporate certificates to track usages on iOS).

Even more to the point, you read about some app installed outside of the Google Play store that’s malware - including the official side loaded version of FortNite…

https://blog.checkpoint.com/research/fortnite-vulnerability-...

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

#310

Post by observationist »

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.

Refuse to participate in either walled garden.

There are no good reasons left to use either platform - you're basically paying an arm and a leg to rent a device whose primary purpose is to usurp your attention and plunder your wallet at every possible opportunity.

Use and encourage your circle to use Signal, so you're not limited to any given platform, or the political or ideological whims of the gardenmeisters.

Google has gone full enshittified with this move, might as well move as far and as fast away from all the shit if you're technically capable, introduce whatever pressure you can to signal that there's a desperate need in the smartphone market for something clean and honest.

Post reply on HN