Realistically, what can be done to stop this?
In my eyes, Google is violating my rights because I did not agree to them stopping independent installation. I view them pushing this update as criminal vandalism.
Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move
381–390 of 564 posts
Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The popularity in app stores has no bearing. Some problem apps can be on no store, just locally installed. This has been well covered in the past and you are playing catch up. It’s about abusive household members who spy on their grown children, siblings, roommates, girlfriends, parents, etc. with apps they install on their devices if given a route to do so.
Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move
#383Dare 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…
Let's take this to the logical extreme: I can make my phone even more secure if I pound a nail through it so that it doesn't turn on anymore. The phone is really secure now; it is impossible to install any malware on it, no one can install a bitcoin miner or track my credit cards or anything.
Even better, how about we replace the concept of "smartphone" with a glossy print of a Pixel phone that people can carry in their pocket? It would be lighter and completely secure as there would be no way to run any software on it.
Obviously I'm being farcical here, but ultimately I think there's a spectrum of security, and generally speaking these kinds of "security increases" end up making the phone less useful. Sideloading apps is already disabled by default. Most users aren't going to enable it; really the only people who are going to enable this are nerds who want to sideload stuff, and there's a strong selection bias towards people who know how to take care of themselves in the first place.
Also, frankly I don't really buy the "security" argument anyway. These companies aren't selfless benevolent entities who care so much about us, they are for-profit enterprises. If all apps need to be approved by and purchased through Google, then they can extract more money from users, which wouldn't be true with a side-loaded app store (e.g. what Amazon tried).
I currently run an iPhone, but I don't like how locked down it is and I have considered moving back to Android because of that, but now I'm not really seeing the point. I could of course install Lineage or Graphene or something else but that's considerably more effort.
I wish Ubuntu Touch had gained traction.
Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move
#384Dare 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…
> …perhaps you and Google have different notions of who the consumers are. A relatively small percentage of HN users have empathy for people who haven't the faintest idea how their gadgets work and no curiosity about learning that. It can seem inconceivable. I agree with you that normal people deserve safety when using their most intimate device, and that backdoors that can give technical people unfettered access wil…
Yes, these big corporations are truly benevolent entities who are only looking out for the common man, and us software engineers are out of touch and "lack empathy".
It couldn't possibly be a frustration and concern that this is blatantly anti-competitive and serves to make Google considerably more money and leaves us with little/no options for people who actually know how to use a computer.
Frankly I think the security argument is largely a smokescreen to avoid discussions of anti-trust.
Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move
#385Installing 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.
Refuse to participate in either walled garden. There are no good reasons left to use either platform - you're basically paying an arm and a leg to rent a device whose primary purpose is to usurp your attention and plunder your wallet at every possible opportunity. Use and encourage your circle to use Signal, so you're not limited to any given platform, or the political or ideological whims of the gardenmeisters. Goog…
“There are no good reasons” really? One of my favorite things about iOS/ipados is the incredible selection of music creation apps. My iPad is loaded with synths, sequencers, and effects. AUM in particular is an amazing program for live performances mixing both software and hardware using a touch interface.
Many, but not all, of the programs I use on iPad are also available on Mac and Windows at much higher prices. That alone is reason enough to use a iPad. Most of these apps can be run on the least expensive iPad and/or older ones.
Like it or not, computing appliances have led to really good software markets. The “clean and honest” software markets are either much more expensive or don’t exist at all. The optimist in me is hoping that Android losing some freedom might lead to higher quality software and some actual competition to Apple.
Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it gets that bad; Google can do what they already do with business listings - send a letter to the physical address matching the ID, containing a code, which then must be entered into the online portal. Do that + identity check = bans for virus makers are not easily evaded, regardless of where they live.
That physical address will be useless, and probably easily worked around, in many if not most countries. Expecting Google to be able to use that address together with the law is a pretty US-centric expectation. I don't think most virus creators would be impacted, especially not the ones that are part of professional (criminal or government) organizations.
Even in the US, it won't always work. If you moved in the past few years, the address on your ID will be wrong.
Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah... Does it support WhatsApp? If not that's a deal-breaker in most of the world.
Most of the world loves being shackled by a Meta product for some reason. The allegiance to WhatsApp is mindbending.
Free unlimited global text messaging in a time when people with very low incomes dealt with very low limits or per-message fees.
Much of the love was built before Facebook took it over.
Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move
#388This is laying the groundwork for mandatory software. Soon after this browsers and messengers will be required to install tracking components to be included in the app stores or approved for sideloading.
This is how the surveillance blob will get around the huge backlash to Apple's mandatory on-device child abuse scanning, close off any avenues to escape it before re-introducing mandatory on-device spying.
Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> the app will be the only way to access your account
Maybe also on the ATMs of other banks?
Re: Android's sideloading limits are its most anti-consumer move
#390I just wish BlackBerry went in a different direction. If during the early-mid 2010s they decided to dedicate to open-source and privacy-first, as well as keeping their flagship QWERTY format with the optimized BlackBerryOS, they could still be around serving a particularly large niche in the smartphone market: Those who use their phone for communication and utility over entertainment. Maybe they can make a comeback.…
It's sad that basically anybody can type faster on a 15-year-old blackberry than on the latest and greatest touchscreen-keyboard phone.
Is typing on a touchscreen phone really that difficult for people? I did a Monkeytype test just now on my iPhone. I got 50WPM in the 30 second test. For comparison, I get about 100WPM when I type on a regular computer keyboard.
I feel like getting 50% typing speed isn't so bad, and I doubt I would get a lot better than that with physical buttons. Generally I'd rather have more screen real estate.
That said, I definitely prefer physical buttons for games.