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

321–330 of 564 posts

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

#321

Post by flawn »

ptrl600 wrote: post #200
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…

With macOS you run "sudo spctl --master disable", and then you can run whatever you want without sending PII to Apple. Is that the case with the new Android stuff?

No, the closest would be rooting your phone but then you can't use banking apps properly (there are loopholes to spoof integrity but they are slowly coming to an end as verification runs on TEE)

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

#322

Post by Wowfunhappy »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #316
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean like all of the ransomware that is being reported on a monthly basis? My mom looked for a printer driver by searching on Google and installed some type of crap that wasn’t the official driver. She is 80. But she has actively been using computers since we had an Apple //e in the house in 1986. On the Mac, people installed Zoom and it installed a backdoor web server.

I'm explicitly only talking about ransomware that requires disabling Windows Defender.

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

#323

Post by array_key_first »

stronglikedan wrote: post #159
array_key_first wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's certainly cheaper when you compare phones with like specs.

Ehh, I'm unconvinced. A lot of these cheapo Android phones have bizarre restrictions and really short lifespans. A used iPhone might last longer and therefore be cheaper in the long run.

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

#324

Post by alex7o »

spogbiper wrote: post #230
JohnFen wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, although using adb requires the use of the usb port, which for some of my projects is highly impractical. Also, with this move, Google has made it very clear that they don't want people to have any real control over their machines -- so I'm not inclined to think that using adb to work around the problem will always be possible. It's fine, though. My hobby projects will continue into the future, just probably wi…

I didn't think a usb port was required since the introduction of wifi adb? https://www.androidpolice.com/use-wireless-adb-android-phone...

I know that this is how shizuku (0) does it and it is required anyway if you want to install multi apk applications so stiff won't change for most people then?

(0): https://shizuku.rikka.app/

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

#325

Post by Fade_Dance »

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?

>Is the population too stupid to be permitted general purpose computers?

I'm strongly against this Android change (for a simple reason written below) but the answer to this is a resounding yes! The general population is a complete security disaster with unsigned software! The latest generations being brought up within abstracted mobile ecosystems are no improvement either on that front (probably worse).

That said - and I think this is a key point in this debate - sideloading apps is already a fringe part of the Android ecosystem. The vast majority of average Android users will never interface with this functionality. Well there is still obviously a security risk as with any time unsigned software is offered, it doesn't seem to me to be a major issue in the ecosystem. This is clearly about control, not security. Let's say there is more antitrust action and Google loses more control over their preferred forced storefront monopoly within the ecosystem. With this change, at least according my understanding of it, they are still the arbiter of what is allowed on the platform and not even if an app comes from another app store.

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

#326

Post by abeyer »

gruez wrote: post #41
billev2k wrote: post #11

The Android Developer Blog called it "an ID check at the airport which confirms a traveler's identity but is separate from the security screening of their bags." From the mouths of rubes, I guess. The ID check at the airport has zero to do with safety or security and everything to do with the airlines' business model (no secondary market for tickets), enforced by government.

>The ID check at the airport has zero to do with safety or security and everything to do with the airlines' business model (no secondary market for tickets), enforced by government. If it's really about protecting "airlines' business model", why did TSA recently start requiring REAL ID to board flights? Were airlines really losing substantial amounts of money through forged drivers licenses that they felt they needed…

> why did TSA recently start requiring REAL ID

Immigration politics

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

#327

Post by jolmg »

cons0le wrote: post #255
xandrius wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: banking, not until adoption of non-Android and non-iOS devices grows. To break this chicken and egg problem, one can get an Android phone and use it exclusively for the banking app, treating it like one of those hardware security keys the banks used to give out in the early 2010s. One used to just leave it at home; maybe take it to work occasionally. Another option is to live like the early 2000s and go to an ATM/bank for all bank things, including account consultation.

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

#328

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

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.

Monopolies hold the US back and it can't coast on their success forever.

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

#329

Post by NotPractical »

GeekyBear wrote: post #306
NotPractical wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Antitrust law applies to any company of massive size that engages in anticompetitive conduct, not just companies who create "open platforms" [1], otherwise there would never be any antitrust cases. An antitrust case would be your best hope under current law, but it already happened and the remedies did not include a mandate to keep allowing unrestricted sideloading indefinitely.

Anyway, you're now moving the goalpost, because you were originally talking about a case based on the premise that they engaged in fraudulent marketing, not a case based on the premise that they currently hold a monopoly. The former would never hold up in court, the latter already happened but the remedies were insufficient to stop Developer Verification.

[1] The reason Apple wasn't forced to allow third party app stores as a result of Epic Games v. Apple was not because iOS is a "closed platform"; they simply weren't found to be a monopoly in the "mobile gaming transactions" market (which does not preclude them from eventually being found a monopoly in the "mobile app distribution" market).

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Google

https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-w...

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

#330

Post by colordrops »

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.

It's ironic that they pull this bullshit while at the same time putting out their "Vanilla Pro" ad mocking Apple's ecosystem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnWykPvftfg

Post reply on HN