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

361–370 of 564 posts

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

#361

Post by kube-system »

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…

> 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.

But they haven't done these things. If they violate the law, they will have violated the law. Google hasn't imposed the discussed requirements yet. However, even if they imposed them today, I do not believe they currently advertise that they allow side-loading.

Also the commercial market for sideloading is basically nil. I'm not sure what antitrust angle you'd take here -- whose market would they unfairly disadvantaging? Basically all antitrust actions thus far regarding mobile platforms have been regarding their gigantic commercial app stores. That is entirely unaffected by these changes.

> 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.

The policy they are proposing is the same policy that Apple recently switched to in order to comply with EU regulations! Apple is doing it precisely because it complies with the EU's demands.

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

#362

Post by firen777 »

arccy wrote: post #142
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.

you don't need permission for the hardware... you can install your own OS.

>you can install your own OS

https://github.com/zenfyrdev/bootloader-unlock-wall-of-shame

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

#363

Post by nmfisher »

WD-42 wrote: post #342
jolmg wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Ubank in Australia just told me they’re retiring their website in a few months, the app will be the only way to access your account. It’s digital only, so no real world branches either.

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

#364

Post by treyd »

colordrops wrote: post #333
treyd wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

AOSP is used in many contexts like embedded devices where somehow enshackling it would screw up Google's self-interest in other market areas (like ensuring there is a wider population of Android developers).

But regardless, thirdparty ROMs will continue to exist regardless of how much effort it takes because the demand exists and will not merely dissipate.

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

#365

Post by RedComet »

natch wrote: post #337
RedComet wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A straw man in your favor, maybe. Shall we compare the 100 least popular of each store?

Those are more likely to be outright malware on Play.

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

#366

Post by grishka »

OJFord wrote: post #354

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,…

These restrictions won't apply to developer tools afaik. You will still be able to install anything using ADB.

(I'm not defending the practice — Android needs to be separated from Google, and it needs to be done 10 years ago)

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

#367

Post by BenjiWiebe »

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.

Please install an ad blocker on your mom's computer, if you haven't already. Not every fake driver etc gets blocked by an ad blocker, but the majority do.

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

#368

Post by orangecat »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #309
orangecat wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (convin…

I appreciate your response even though I strongly disagree.

You really can’t trust developers to do the right thing

Indeed not, and that includes OS developers. Imagine if Microsoft had been able to block web browsers other than IE in the name of "security".

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

#369

Post by BenjiWiebe »

blibble wrote: post #357
ethbr1 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How many pixels have you had that reboot when you take a picture or make a phone call?

My pixels haven't done that (yet anyways).

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

#370

Post by blibble »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #369
blibble wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How many pixels have you had that reboot when you take a picture or make a phone call? My pixels haven't done that (yet anyways).

4
Post reply on HN