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

351–360 of 564 posts

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

#351

Post by doug_durham »

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.

"Refreshing" is an interesting adjective to use. I don't want a refreshing OS. I want a rock stable OS that sips battery.

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

#352

Post by WD-42 »

londons_explore wrote: post #347
WD-42 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or use the banks website from a computer? Which banks do not allow this?

Many banks in Europe are app-only and don't allow you to log in with a web browser.

Yikes. That sounds tough.

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

#353

Post by itintheory »

HiPhish wrote: post #237
znort_ wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

indeed, but they're not talking about your phone, they're talking about android, which is something you don't buy nor own, you buy a license to use it on the provider's terms. linux phones can't come soon enough ... your point about the termn "sideloading" is spot on, though. perverting the language is the first step of manipulation: installing software is "sideloading", sharing files is "piracy", legitimate resistan…

> which is something you don't buy nor own, you buy a license to use it on the provider's terms The distinction between "own" and "license" is purely a legal one. If I buy a kitchen table I own it, I can chop it up and use the pieces to make my own furniture and sell it. When I buy a copy of a Super Mario game I cannot rip the sprites and make my own Super Mario game because I don't own the copyright nor trademark of…

> Nintendo does not get to march into my home and smash my games because they want me to buy the new one instead of playing my old ones.

This is a really interesting example to choose because the new Nintendo Switch 2 cartridges have literally no data storage except to hold a license key. The content has to be downloaded from their servers, which they absolutely will take offline eventually.

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

#354

Post by OJFord »

A while ago I implemented some little feature I wanted for an open source app, and tested it on my phone. Only Android development I've ever done, a few hours' work: I wasn't going to get certified as an official Android developer for it. With this, I wouldn't be able to do it? Or rather I could, but could only test with the Android Studio emulator or similar?

Similarly if I just wanted to make something for myself, not distribute it at all, I know have to register with this program just to install my thing on my own phone? I don't think even Apple goes that far?

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

#355

Post by vermilingua »

monksy wrote: post #348

The funny thing here: They have active spyware and malware on their app store. They go by vague offical sounding names like "Gallery" and "Messages" "Text Messages" I've reported it and that goes to an google form where the app stays up. I've even gone farenough where I've escalated through internal Google contacts. Nothing is done. It's not sideloading that's the issue. It's google. This is a hostile behavior to all…

They believe it because it’s true. RMS et al. have been predicting this for eons, but now that these companies feel comfortable to move overtly it’s pretty much too late to stop them.

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

#356

Post by kube-system »

casenmgreen wrote: post #315
kube-system wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that actually were the case, the iPhone would've died in 2007. In reality, most people don't even know what sideloading is. Those are the people who are buying phones and supporting the market for their existence. The 0.001% of people who want to side load applications onto their phone, can clamor for a new OS all they want, but unless they put the resources in place to make that happen, it won't.

> If that actually were the case, the iPhone would've died in 2007. But there was Android. If you cared about loading, you could ditch Apple. You had something else to go to. Now there's nothing.

There were zero Android phones in 2007. The G1 launched in 2008 as a brand new platform with no third party apps. In 2007, Windows Mobile was the popular platform for people who liked loading their own software on their phone.

If you were around for the early Android scene you might have heard of XDA Developers -- which was named for the O2 XDA Windows Mobile phone.

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

#357

Post by blibble »

ethbr1 wrote: post #215
rs186 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't make any difference anyway, does it? Then I might as well treat myself with better hardware & ecosystem.

Better hardware, yes. But you'll be reminded quickly how comparatively shit Apple's software is. Aka the litany of "Oh, yeah, everyone knows that's broken but just deals with it, because there's no way to fix issues on a closed platform other than {wait for Apple}."

my iphone doesn't reboot every time I try to take a picture or make a phone call (on every pixel I've had)

android sucks, but it was open

now it just sucks

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

#358

Post by bitwize »

Most consumers DON'T CARE. They want their phones to access Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, Bluesky, their banking, shopping, and food order apps, etc. If anything they'd be glad to know that Google is stopping entire classes of malware at the source. This is an anti-techie move, not an anti-consumer move. Only techies care about being able to run any software you want on a device you own. Most people don't really want to own a computer because owning one means you are responsible for administrating it, and that's well beyond normies' capability and/or well outside the things they want to spend time or energy fucking with. They just want access to what the computer enables.

Continuing to bang on this drum has "less space than a Nomad, lame" energy. Except it's political, so you sound even more like an autistic loon. Start thinking, techies. Not everybody is remotely like you. 99% of Google's customer base don't care about this, and Google may have actually increased Android's value to end users.

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

#359

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#360

Post by bitwize »

palata wrote: post #212
lieks wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well GrapheneOS is not Google-certified, so it is not impacted by this :-).

AOSP releases are going to stop (or become late and cursory like Darwin releases), and new Pixels will not be able to run non-Google-certified operating systems :)
Post reply on HN