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

381–390 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#381

Post by s20n »

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

Yes, there needs to be a lot more uproar for these cases as well. One of the most appalling cases is that of macOS. To distribute your app (as a .dmg for instance), you need to sign up and pay for a Developer ID, sign the app with a Developer ID certificate and then notarize it, EVEN if you don't intend to use their App Store.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#382

Post by koolala »

dataflow wrote: post #371
koolala wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm just not sure people have been referring to that method when saying 'sideloading' and Google didn't mention sideloading specifically there.

This is what they say in the quote this article is about:

"Does this mean sideloading is going away on Android?

Absolutely not. Sideloading is fundamental to Android and it is not going away. Our new developer identity requirements are designed to protect users and developers from bad actors, not to limit choice. We want to make sure that if you download an app, it’s truly from the developer it claims to be published from, regardless of where you get the app. Verified developers will have the same freedom to distribute their apps directly to users through sideloading or through any app store they prefer."

In this paragraph they don't mention ABD at all similar to how in your paragraph they don't mention sideloading.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#383

Post by marcprux »

klawed wrote: post #248

It makes me a little sad that there’s no mention of Raymond Carver in this thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Talk_About_When_We_Tal... The current state of dominant mobile OS’s is about as bleak as the bleakest Carver story. Since I’m on a tangent I’ll also highly recommend the movie Shortcuts.

Also recommended: BIRDMAN or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#384

Post by franciscop »

s20n wrote: post #381
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 Yes, there needs to be a lot more uproar for these cases as well. One of the most appalling cases is that of macOS. To distribute your app (as a .dmg for instance), you need to sign up and pay for a Developer ID, sign the app with a Developer ID certificate and then notarize it, EVE…

Wait, do you need to do that? I've never attempted distribution, but I've created multiple local apps with Electron and Tauri for myself, and they are just a .app on my Applications folder. Wouldn't it be as easy as sharing this file with anyone else if I wanted to distribute them?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#385

Post by kuhsaft »

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

Historically, when the first game consoles with game cartridges existed, the hardware was much more niche than the available personal computers. Game system developers designed hardware specifically for games, and game developers developed for those specific systems. Also, physical media for games provided an ownership model and DRM.

In 2003, Apple released the iTunes Music Store partnering with music labels to counteract the prevalence of music pirating. That was the first major digital marketplace with DRM and way before the App Store in 2008!

In 2005, digital distribution for video game consoles came with the Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, and Wii. Being game consoles with unique hardware, they kept their restricted licensed development model of previous generations.

The iPhone and App Store just followed that pattern. Unique hardware and a licensed digital marketplace to go with it.

Now, the hardware between video game consoles, smartphones, and personal computers are mostly unified; and the only real difference is software, but the restricted marketplace model still remains.

---

> The fact that mobile phones aren't yet just a standard type of portable computer with an open-ish harware/driver ecosystem that anybody can just make an OS for (and hence allow anybody to just install what they want) is kind of wild IMHO. Why hasn't the kind of ferver that created Linux driven engineers to fix their phones?

DRM. There are already devices where you can unlock the bootloader and install any OS on it. But then you won't be able to install apps that use the Play Integrity API to ensure DRM. Companies/developers want revenue and develop apps that require Play Integrity.

Any device that doesn't have DRM will never support a paid digital marketplace or paid content streaming.

> Is Android and iOS just good enough to keep us complacent and trapped forever?

Probably. Microsoft tried a DRM supported OS with Windows Phone and that failed.

---

That being said, digital marketplaces and DRM have there place to prevent piracy and allow developers and creators to make a living.

If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#386

Post by jorisboris »

> As a reminder, this applies not just to devices that exclusively use the Google Play Store: this is for every Android Certified device everywhere in the world, which encompasses over 95% of all Android devices outside of China.

So what happens in China? Should we buy Chinese Android phones?

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#387

Post by necovek »

akerl_ wrote: post #306
necovek wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've asked for an intrinsic difference between a class of devices: no, you are unlikely to want to run general purpose apps on your washing machine. Yes, you are likely to do so on your smart phone. Probable on your modern "smart TV". Low probability on your eReader. Legislation like EU Cybersecurity Act hopefully pushes things into more of a fundamental rights thing by demanding that devices don't go into the tras…

I'm not asking for an intrinsic difference: I'm suggesting that if "I can install custom applications/code on this device I own" is a fundamental right, there would need to be an intrinsic difference. My personal opinion is that there is not an intrinsic difference. That "I want to do it to these devices and not those" can't be the justification for it being a right that I'm able to.

To counter your claim, I've tried to explain what that intrinsic difference is in my previous comment.

I am not sure if you are disagreeing with me or ignoring my point :)

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#388

Post by Groxx »

lisdexan wrote: post #163
Groxx wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAICT it only works on non-rooted devices when used over USB to access another device , because without root it has no access to the adb server on the phone running termux. I'm definitely not 100% sure about that though, so someone please correct me if not.

Just tested⁰, it works with WiFi ADB but it has some limitations. - The pairing process is kinda awkward, you need to split screen Termux and the Wireless debugging submenu, if you change windows the pairing IP and code are changed. - The pair survives a reboot and WiFi change. You can disable the 7day revocation, so the pairing process is a one time thing. - After a pair you still need to connect (adb connect localh…

wifi adb is a clever workaround, lol. I haven't seen that before, but it does kinda make sense. I've used SAI before (though it has been having lots more problems in the past year or three), but haven't seen Shizuku.

thank you for the testing and details!

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#389

Post by grishka »

axus wrote: post #365
grishka wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On Google Play, it's only finished for a few years at best. If it's not updated to the latest version, eventually it gets delisted.

That's exactly my point — if Android itself doesn't have meaningless updates every year, then apps won't need them either.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#390

Post by dghlsakjg »

s20n wrote: post #381
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 Yes, there needs to be a lot more uproar for these cases as well. One of the most appalling cases is that of macOS. To distribute your app (as a .dmg for instance), you need to sign up and pay for a Developer ID, sign the app with a Developer ID certificate and then notarize it, EVE…

You can self sign without a developer account and self distribute and all it does is notify the user that the software is from the internet the first time they run it. They can still use the app. If it is completely unsigned, users may have to bypass gatekeeper, but that is just a setting.

If you want to sign using a cert trusted by apple, and distribute on their infrastructure, you do need a paid account.

This seems like a reasonable compromise, quite honestly. That is based on remembering the bad old days of just having to trust that the software you downloaded from some random shareware site hadn't been modified maliciously.

Post reply on HN