Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

f-droid.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#371

Post by dataflow »

koolala wrote: post #196
dataflow wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, question. While I'm also miffed about Google's decision and see your point about the term sideloading, there is another elephant in the room you seem to not be addressing here. You write: > “Sideloading is Not Going Away” is clear, concise, and false_ But isn't Google saying that you will still be able to sideload via ADB ? Which would mean their statement is true, and that your claim that Google's statement is…

Can you provide supporting evidence? A place where they say Sideloading is now becoming ADB installing?

This is what they say in their blog post:

You will continue to be able to build and run an app even if your identity is not verified. Android Studio is unaffected because deployments performed with adb, which Android Studio uses behind the scenes to push builds to devices, is unaffected. You can continue to develop, debug, and test your app locally by deploying to both emulators and physical devices, just as you do now.

If you see a loophole in the clear argument they're making there, I'd love to know. I don't see any obvious ones.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#372

Post by bsimpson »

bane wrote: post #349

I'm struck with how long the history of Apple's earliest iPhone has shaped and produced long-term damage to the concept of digital ownership. Apple originally didn't allow anybody but Apple to create software for the 1st gen iPhone, and only later was forced "opening" it my market forces. People who realized they actually owned the thing they bought wanted to do what they wanted, which required circumventing Apple's…

> It is interesting though how this same conversation doesn't exist in the same way in other areas of computing like video game consoles

This is part proprietary pedigree too.

You had to buy Nintendo cartridges to play Nintendo games, so no one ever questioned the Nintendo seal.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#373

Post by altfredd »

nashashmi wrote: post #114

Is this seeking Google’s approval for the app? Or is the condition app be signed by a verified user? The latter means side loading is still viable for apps from known developers . This way anyone who is known who may create malware and will not be free from prosecution

Approval is tied to individual apps. From https://developer.android.com/developer-verification:

> You'll need to prove you own your apps by providing your app package name and app signing keys

Needless to say, Google will throw out NewPipe, ad-blockers and anything else that might endanger their profits. For example, Google does not allow F-Droid to be published in Google Play (distributing competing app stores is against their ToS). This policy was in action as long as Google Play/Android Market existed.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#374

Post by dataflow »

panny wrote: post #226
dataflow wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, question. While I'm also miffed about Google's decision and see your point about the term sideloading, there is another elephant in the room you seem to not be addressing here. You write: > “Sideloading is Not Going Away” is clear, concise, and false_ But isn't Google saying that you will still be able to sideload via ADB ? Which would mean their statement is true, and that your claim that Google's statement is…

>But isn't Google saying that you will still be able to sideload via ADB? No, it will not. Nothing will install an application without a Google approved signature on it. They will remove ad blocks from your Android and you will like it. "The beatings will continue until morale improves" sort of behavior. I'm hopeful that the mystery OEM that GrapheneOS is targeting is in fact Sony Xperia. If it isn't, I'm just going…

> No, it will not. Nothing will install an application without a Google approved signature on it.

How do you interpret this then:

>> You will continue to be able to build and run an app even if your identity is not verified. Android Studio is unaffected because deployments performed with adb, which Android Studio uses behind the scenes to push builds to devices, is unaffected. You can continue to develop, debug, and test your app locally by deploying to both emulators and physical devices, just as you do now.

Isn't that the opposite of what you wrote? What am I missing?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#375

Post by tonyhart7 »

BrenBarn wrote: post #16

I think we could set the bar substantially higher. Don't even bother with discussion of sideloading. Talk about bounded transactions and device control. What is needed is: Once I have purchased a device, the transaction is over. I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control.

"I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control."

the problem is transaction not done once you own the device, you must use the ecosystem

Google and Apple create this ecosystem and they own it, so even if you have 100% control of your device but you cant live without their ecosystem

OS is just "half the battle", if its so easy Microsoft would not let windows mobile died

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#376

Post by marak830 »

endgame wrote: post #362

Australian users of alternative app stores should make a complaint to the ACCC: https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/contact-us-or-report-an-iss... In the past, they forced Steam to implement proper refund policies, and they are currently suing Microsoft about the way subscribers were duped into paying more for "AI features" they didn't want.

Done, thank you for the link.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#377

Post by tonyhart7 »

zouhair wrote: post #138
terminalshort wrote: post #42

I think this misses the forest for the trees here. The platforms behavior here is a symptom and not the core problem. I think the following are pretty clearly correct: 1. It's your damn phone and you should be able to install whatever the hell you want on it 2. Having an approved channel for verified app loading is a valuable security tool and greatly reduces the number of malicious apps installed on users devices Gi…

I don't trust the Google Play Store.

"I don't trust the Google Play Store."

then you trust who??? Apple app stores?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#378

Post by unsungNovelty »

Despite all the bad moves, one of the reasons why I use android and not iPhone is installing apps from places like fdroid.

If this stops, it fundamentally disallows me to have the privacy that Apple app store can't provide. The amount of garbage apps in play store is horrible. I don't try out any new apps from there cos of this. So I will just switch to iPhone.

Already degoogled for pretty much most things. This will be the last. And maybe switch my website from netlify which I think is using google cloud (need to check).

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#379

Post by com2kid »

asveikau wrote: post #308
marcprux wrote: post #27

Author here. I admit I am rather startled by the tone of many comments here and the accusations of disingenuity. Splitting hairs about the origin of the term "sideload" does not change the fact that those who promote the term tend to do so in order to make it feel deviant and hacker-ish. You don't "sideload" software on your Linux, Windows, or macOS computer: you install it. You have the right to install whatever you…

This community has pockets of people who like authoritarian control, and genuinely believe in Apple or Google Play as some kind of superego that they need to defend, that they believe is protecting us. This surfaces in many types of discussions, including discussions where they may be prompted to defend the locked down nature of mobile devices. I say it's just pockets. A vocal pocket. It's not everyone here. But it e…

> This community has pockets of people who like authoritarian control,

Alternatively, we've spent our lives helping our parents out. Last year my mom just got completely owned, total taken over of all her financial accounts. The most likely vector was that her phone was out of date and not receiving security patches anymore.

Luckily her bank's anti fraud systems kicked in before too much damage was done.

Prior to smart phones, many of us remember making monthly, or even weekly, trips to family members houses to remove malware and viruses from personal computers.

Things were bad.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#380

Post by godelski »

grishka wrote: post #126
Valodim wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this even mean? You don't want software updates? Or strictly only software updates that are 100% aligned with your wishes whatever they may be at the time?

Unironically, I want finished software. I don't like it one bit how the vast majority of software products today are in an "eternal beta", so to speak. Android, in particular, is a finished product. It doesn't need yearly updates. It may need an occasional update to patch a vulnerability, but this whole "we changed the notification shade UI for tenth time because we're so out of ideas" thing has to stop.

  > Unironically, I want finished software.
I don't think software is ever finished.

But I'd definitely love to not be shipped alpha or beta software. MVPs are great when hacking, but why are we shipping hacked together stuff. "It works" doesn't mean it actually works...

Post reply on HN