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

331–340 of 564 posts

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

#331

Post by dangus »

ptx wrote: post #217
dangus wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this isn’t true at all, before the iPhone existed cellular carriers controlled software on consumer phones. Remember when GPS navigation was a $5/month app that was a cellular plan addon?

Only phones sold by carriers were controlled by carriers. You could easily (in Europe at least) buy an unlocked phone and put in a SIM from any carrier of your choice. You could then easily install (i.e. "sideload") Java apps from anywhere you wanted, e.g. from a storage card or over Bluetooth, although some permissions were restricted unless you bought an expensive code-signing certificate.

As I recall, in the US at the time the best networks were CDMA and had more strict device activation requirements, especially Verizon.

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

#332

Post by dangus »

vbezhenar wrote: post #206
dangus wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not by much these days. The Pixel 10 actually gives you half the storage as the iPhone 17 at the same price. The only Android phones that are significantly cheaper than equivalent iPhone tend to come with some kind of compromise (and don’t forget that Apple’s phones start at $600 - the iPhone 16e exists).

Try Xiaomi.

Not sold in the US officially, no warranty service.

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

#333

Post by colordrops »

treyd wrote: post #291
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 could also use a thirdparty ROM.

How long until AOSP deviates so much from features in 3rd party ROMs that it becomes infeasible to for amateur developers to maintain them?

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

#334

Post by schlauerfox »

sudo_and_pray wrote: post #225
ohman876 wrote: post #59

I know this is side topic but if buying the Android or iPhone hardware gives us hardware we don't control, then what alternatives we realistically have? I do own pinephone (and I was recently reading that they kinda staled with development of new phones hardware), I know about librem.. is there anything else on the market?

Probably Linux phones, they are not there yet, but maybe by the time Android becomes an iOS it will be there. Problem will be with banking apps and such, well you can get an used iphone and in lockdown mode it should be fine even if it reaches EoL.

Bought a used iPhone 7 for a specific project requiring a supported OS (iOS15) and having a hardware security module and the phone worked fine for that but Microsoft Authenticator refused to install below iOS 16 for no obvious reason.

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

#335

Post by NoPicklez »

grepex wrote: post #75
unlikelytomato wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get where you are coming from. However, language like this matters when it comes to legislation. People outside there space will be guided by the sideload language to think it's just "something extra on the side so why should I care?"

Agreed. "Sideloading" has been marketed as a boogeyman opening doors to malware, when in fact malware exists on the play store anyway.

It hasn't been marketed that way, its a term which differentiates installing apps from the app store and installing them outside of it.

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

#336

Post by NotPractical »

GeekyBear wrote: post #303
kube-system wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

What? The parent comment alleges that your claim that Google engaged in fraudulent marketing is false, but your reply just restates your original claim without addressing their argument.

> except the EU

Also Australia, Japan, Brazil, and the United Kingdom, with others sure to follow.

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

#337

Post by natch »

RedComet wrote: post #242
natch wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Running binaries signed either by yourself or by whoever wants to spy on you.” That last part there is the problem.

Let's ignore all of the preinstalled programs, which are signed by Google and do a great deal of spying. Do you think the 100 most popular F-Droid apps do more spying than the 100 most popular Play store apps?

No, that’s a straw man. The popular ones are not the concern.

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

#338

Post by dangus »

koolala wrote: post #192
dangus wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a massive stretch. What marketing campaign said that? And even if it did, it’s not like marketing campaigns make claims that last forever. Red Lobster doesn’t owe you anything because endless crab legs isn’t a thing anymore.

embrace, extend, extinguish

Now I’m just talking to a parrot whose been living in Richard Stallman’s house.

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

#340

Post by hahn-kev »

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.

Probably the only real benefit now is Firefox/alt browsers
Post reply on HN