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

391–400 of 564 posts

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

#391

Post by nagonago »

kube-system wrote: post #253
bigwheels wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just "install". This word was sufficient my entire life until the Apple App Store came along and hijacked it. "Why should I change my name? He's the one who sucks" https://youtube.com/watch?v=ADgS_vMGgzY&t=3s

You could certainly say that. But if you go up to a normal person on the street and say "Google has prevented you from installing apps on your phone", while they're still able to install from Google Play just fine, they're going to look at you like a crackhead. Language is for conveying information to other people. If your audience doesn't understand what you're saying, you're effectively screaming into the void.

"Google has prevented you from installing apps outside the Google Play store on your phone."

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

#392

Post by NotPractical »

blastersyndrome wrote: post #381

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.

A law with more teeth than the EU's Digital Markets Act (which, contrary to popular belief, does not actually require sideloading) could theoretically be passed. The current (pre-lobbying) iteration of the App Store Freedom Act looks pretty good (ctrl+f "security", "safety", "integrity" returns zero results).

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3209...

Realistically speaking, that probably won't happen, though. What can you, yourself do to mitigate the impact?

Install a forked version of Android without Developer Verification. LineageOS, GrapheneOS and CalxyOS are all pretty good options. Stop using any apps with remote attestation via Play Integrity, which will mean sacrificing more and more functionality as time goes on. Try to use mobile sites instead of mobile apps as much as possible. Watch the F-Droid catalog get smaller and smaller until it crumbles completely when it becomes unusable by >80% of Android users.

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

#394

Post by rs186 »

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}."

I will take Apple's software over Samsung's ad infested, buggy & ugly software any day.

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

#395

Post by echelon »

AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #320
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.

Android is losing a unique selling point. This will have an impact on what a techie may recommend to a non-techie in the future, because everything is beige now. I have the feeling Google has given up on using nerds as beachheads. The market is saturated enough and they don't need us anymore to do grass roots spreading of their products. It's the same with Youtube. As long as there were enough people who were unencum…

This is unacceptable.

Google needs to be broken up. Apple too.

The lack of antitrust enforcement is a clown show.

We have no choice in the most important computing category in the world. It's a duopoly and they have everyone in straightjackets - consumers, companies, competitors, governments, ...

A huge percentage of the world's thoughts and economy flow through mobile. And two companies own it.

Ma Bell was nothing compared to this.

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

#396

Post by osn9363739 »

miclill wrote: post #114

My hope is that this lets some more people wake up and finally make Linux on the smartphone a reality.

I'd love to see this. Could the community rally a phone manufacturer with phones at different price points and focus on that? Most projects I've looked at in the past have been as good as dead, or spread across a bunch of outdated or bad phones.

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

#397

Post by potwinkle »

computerex wrote: post #166
fareesh wrote: post #149

from what i understand: - if you compile from source and deploy via adb nothing changes - if you use a closed source binary, the identity of the owner becomes mandatory so the issue is anonymously published closed source software?

> - if you use a closed source binary, the identity of the owner becomes mandatory So I can't just build an apk and distribute to others? What's the process for providing identity?

Paying Google $25 for the privilege of giving them a picture of your face and license to save in their cloud.

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

#398

Post by fooqux »

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.

Aside from everyone pointing out that you can't do that on most phones, there's also the fact that installing your own OS will block you from using many apps that check your secure status.

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

#399

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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.

"If I can't do this anymore..."

How will Google force Android users to "update" so sideloadinng can be prevented

Non-updated versions of Android running non-updated versions of sideloaded apps will not have the restriction

Another example of how not every "update" is for "security" and "updates" should be optional

The computer owner chooses one version of an operating system, e.g., "I chose Android because I can sideload any app", but by allowing automatic updates, without reviewing them first, the computer owner agrees to let the operating system vendor change the software remotely to anything the vendor chooses. The computer owner goes along with whatever the vendor decides, letting the vendor take them for a ride

If the operating system gets _worse_ in the opinion of the computer owner, if it fails to meet their needs, e.g., "sideloading", then that's too bad. The computer owner chose one version of Android, but by subscribing to "automatic updates" they effectively chose all future versions as well

This is why I prefer BSD UNIX-like operating system projects where I can choose to update or not to update. Unlike the hypothetical Android user, the project does not decide for me

HN replies may try to draw attention to "security" and away from "sideloading restriction". However there is no option to accept "security updates" while rejecting "sideloading restriction updates". According to the so-called "tech" companies that conduct data collection and surveillance as a "business model" through free, auto-updated software, every update, no matter what it contains, is deemed essential and critical for "security"

Online commentators seem to agree that the computer owner should have the choice to install or not install _any_ software outside the "app store", so-called "sideloading". Perhaps this freedom to choose whether to install or not install software should also apply to operating system "updates"

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

#400

Post by heavyset_go »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #236
heavyset_go wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have sandboxing and run whatever you want. I do it every day on PCs where I, the user, can define the terms of sandboxing any appliclation I want, and not a trillion dollar corporation using sandboxes to enforce their chosen revenue streams upon users.

Yes and for you to think that is a valid argument for a consumer product is why most open source products suck for consumers and end up being about as bad as the “homermobile”.

You do realize macOS has used sandboxing by default for over a decade, right?

ChromeOS/ChromiumOS uses heavy sandboxing. Android currently uses sandboxing transparently, despite plans to iOS-ify the platform. Hell, Windows uses app isolation sandboxing these days.

All four consumer platforms let you run the software you want to and they provide sandboxing at the same time. They also let you configure sandboxes, too.

As for open source, consumer products like the Steam Deck use sandboxes, popular game launchers like Lutris use sandboxes, Firefox transparently uses sandboxing by default, as does Chromium/Chrome, anything installed automatically with Flatpak or Snap are sandboxed by default and AppArmor/SELinux works in the background automatically on most distros and are activated by default.

Saying open source projects like the Steam Deck, Firefox, Chromium, ChromiumOS and Android suck for consumers is a weird opinion, but you're free to have it.

Post reply on HN