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

391–400 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#391

Post by AlgebraFox »

unsungNovelty wrote: post #378

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…

Instead it would be great if you join the fight against Google (and Apple) by using FOSS and independent distributions like GrapheneOS. It is the most secure and private option we have today. Most apps work as it is except a few those who purposefully use Google Play Integrity API to block independent platforms.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#392

Post by MonaroVXR »

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 or other embedded computing devices where the controls against arbitrary applications is even stronger.

Far less technical people from my perspective

Not fun if you work I.T. whatever you role is

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#393

Post by grishka »

godelski wrote: post #380
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.

> 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...

> I don't think software is ever finished.

Back when it came on physical media, it was very much finished. Needing an update to fix a critical bug or a UX issue was a very costly problem to have, both in money and in reputation. Users had to be convinced to buy and install major updates, instead of being strong-armed into it. Staying on an older version was easier, and in case of operating systems, much more widely accepted.

Many video games fall into that category even today. Sure, the "we can always release an update" mentality did infest game developers as well, but, unlike apps and OSes, most games do have a finite scope and stop being developed once that scope has been realized.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#395

Post by kragen »

knollimar wrote: post #332
kragen wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you absolutely should have the right to install (or uninstall) whatever software you want on any of those, assuming it contains writable program memory. The alternative is a nightmarish dystopian future where your washing machine company is selling its estimate of your political inclinations, sexual activities, and risk aversion to your car insurance company, your ex-husband, your trade union representative, and…

I thought I had this line, but I imagined if my credit card had writable program memory, I'd be fine with a third party preventing me from using it for its intended purpose if it wasn't trusted there. There must be some purpose for my own good for preventing me from writing to my own program memory, and I should be able to void this purpose if I deem it worth it. Likewise, I'd be fine with banking apps on phones requ…

Why would your credit card need to act against your interests? The only thing it should be doing is signing transactions to signal that you approve. The credit card company has their own computers that can be consulted to ask them if they approve a transaction. They don't need one in your pocket. They can rent a rack in a data center. It's not that expensive.

Similarly, the banking app on your phone should be representing your interests, 100%. It may need to keep secrets, such as a private transaction signing key, from your bank or from your boyfriend, but not from you. And it definitely should not be collecting information on your phone against your will or without your knowledge. But that is currently common practice.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#396

Post by free_bip »

AlgebraFox wrote: post #391
unsungNovelty wrote: post #378

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…

Instead it would be great if you join the fight against Google (and Apple) by using FOSS and independent distributions like GrapheneOS. It is the most secure and private option we have today. Most apps work as it is except a few those who purposefully use Google Play Integrity API to block independent platforms.

As much as I'd like to, the vast majority of android phones are incapable of installing grapheneOS.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#397

Post by noitpmeder »

GuB-42 wrote: post #360
kragen wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think the end user is in a better position than Google to decide who to trust. Some end users will make bad decisions, but Google's interests are systematically misaligned with theirs.

Not really. Google has maybe the best security researchers in the world, most end users have no idea, Hacker News is not representative of the general population. I am not saying it justifies locking down devices, but that's the kind of situation where I think a bit of friction is a good thing. For example having to connect your phone to a computer and run some command line tool (like for unlocking a bootloader). You…

Even if you allow package distribution whitelists, and even if we allow Google, by virtue of essentially owning/steering Android to, by default, be on the whitelist in their distributions...

At some point you need to just let the user say "I'm OK with being accountable for the installation" and get out of the way.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#398

Post by acomjean »

heavyset_go wrote: post #363
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…

> 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? It's because each phone SoC is essentially its own bespoke architecture. You can't build one…

One of the interesting history of the PC was when Microsoft started selling their OS to clone makers. To hear Balmer tell it, it was frighting as IBM was making their PS2 machines more proprietary. They won and IBM os2 lost. I figured android was Google’s MSDos for mobile, but it seems the temptation of ad revenue is too strong (even showing up on windows..)

Linux is the answer though on mobile it’s just starting to be a little competitive.

“Steve Ballmer: We said ooh, IBM's probably not going to like this. This is going to threaten OS 2. Now we told them about it, right away we told them about it, but we still did it. They didn't like it, we told em about it, we told em about it, we offered to licence it to em.

Bill Gates: We always thought the best thing to do is to try and combine IBM promoting the software with us doing the engineering. And so it was only when they broke off communication and decided to go their own way that we thought, okay, we're on our own, and that was definitely very, very scary.”

https://www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#399

Post by kragen »

GuB-42 wrote: post #360
kragen wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think the end user is in a better position than Google to decide who to trust. Some end users will make bad decisions, but Google's interests are systematically misaligned with theirs.

Not really. Google has maybe the best security researchers in the world, most end users have no idea, Hacker News is not representative of the general population. I am not saying it justifies locking down devices, but that's the kind of situation where I think a bit of friction is a good thing. For example having to connect your phone to a computer and run some command line tool (like for unlocking a bootloader). You…

Yes, Google has much greater competency. But when their interests run counter to their users' interests, as in the particular case we're talking about where they are nuking F-Droid from orbit, thus depriving users of access to NewPipe and other apps that don't try to rip users off, that higher competency is a disadvantage, not an advantage.

Neither incentive alignment nor competency is sufficient without the other.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#400

Post by znort_ »

bfdm wrote: post #312
znort_ wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You have the right to install whatever you want on your computer, regardless of whether that computer is on your desk or in your pocket. That's a hill I'll die on. I'm dismayed to see that this sentiment is not more widespread in this of all communities. agreed, but i'm not going to die on any hill. i don't see much point in this discussion, these corps will do whatever they like. for me it is simple: iphone never w…

Very curious what you expect to move to. The market outside those options is extremely limited.

it is, but i'm willing to compromise. grapheneos can be an option for a while, ultimately a linux phone. worst case i can settle with 2 phones for a while, one cheap/old stock android exclusively for the bank and such, another one for everything else.

it's also a long run, the way things are shaping up i don't expect alternatives to become mainstream but nevertheless getting improved support over time.

if we indeed end up in a situation where there is no viable alternative then screw that, i might as well go completely off grid.

Post reply on HN