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

41–50 of 564 posts

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

#41

Post by gruez »

billev2k wrote: post #11

The Android Developer Blog called it "an ID check at the airport which confirms a traveler's identity but is separate from the security screening of their bags." From the mouths of rubes, I guess. The ID check at the airport has zero to do with safety or security and everything to do with the airlines' business model (no secondary market for tickets), enforced by government.

>The ID check at the airport has zero to do with safety or security and everything to do with the airlines' business model (no secondary market for tickets), enforced by government.

If it's really about protecting "airlines' business model", why did TSA recently start requiring REAL ID to board flights? Were airlines really losing substantial amounts of money through forged drivers licenses that they felt they needed to crack down?

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

#42

Post by gjsman-1000 »

ta1243 wrote: post #37
HiPhish wrote: post #4

We need to stop calling it "sideloading", we should call it freely installing software. The term "sideloading" makes it sound shady and hacky when in reality it is what we have been able to do on our computers since forever. These are not phones, they are computers shaped like phones, computer which we fully bought with our money, and I we shall install what we want on our own computers.

> when in reality it is what we have been able to do on our computers since forever You do realise that's been changing right? Slowly of course, there's no single villain that James Bond could take down, or that a charistmatic leader could get elected could change. The oil tanker has been moving in that direction for decades. There are legions defending the right to run your own software, but it's a continual war of…

If you want a real blackpill (I think this is the right word), consider the famous Cathedral and the Bazaar.

I recently had a realization: I can name Cathedrals, that are 800 years old, and still standing. I can't name a single Bazaar stall more than 50 years old around any Cathedral that's still standing. The Cathedral's builders no doubt bought countless stone and food from the Bazaar, making the Bazaar very useful for building Cathedrals with, but the Bazaar was historically ephemeral.

The very title of the essay predicts failure. The very metaphor for the philosophy was broken from the start. Or, in a twisted accidentally correct way, it was the perfect metaphor for how open-source ends up as Cathedral supplies.

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

#43

Post by yndoendo »

kypro wrote: post #9

As someone who doesn't really care about apps, if I wanted to move away from Android what phones and OSs are worth considering?

Don't know how the Google's actions with affect AOSP. There are few options depending on location / country with base band frequencies.

Murena with e/OS/ [0], Purism with PureOS [1], Volla with Volla OS or Ubuntu Touch [2], and Furei Labs with FuriOS [3].

Those are the companies actually trying to sell a phone versus Pin64 selling a device to tinker with.

Alternative is checking personally managed OSes like postmarketOS [4] and Ubuntu Touch [5].

[0] https://murena.com/ [1] https://puri.sm/ [2] https://volla.online/en/ [3] https://furilabs.com/ [4] https://postmarketos.org/ [5] https://www.ubuntu-touch.io/

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

#44

Post by jadbox »

detectivestory wrote: post #26
jadbox wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still install apps outside the play store, but the developer does need to verify their signing information. Effectively this means that any app you install must have a paper trail to the originating developer, even if its not on the app store. On one hand, I can see the need for this to track down virus creators, but on the other, it provides Google transparency and control over side loaded app. It IS a conce…

From a quick glance at /r/GooglePlayDeveloper/ it looks like Google is just as interested in killing playstore apps! It seems that they only want to support the existing larger apps now. I think they are giving a clear message to developers that its not really worth developing for that platform anymore. I think we will all agree that the playstore needed a purge but they seem to be making it impossible for any new so…

I have no idea what this means. How does this change "kill playstore apps"?

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

#45

Post by spankibalt »

znort_ wrote: post #15
HiPhish wrote: post #4

We need to stop calling it "sideloading", we should call it freely installing software. The term "sideloading" makes it sound shady and hacky when in reality it is what we have been able to do on our computers since forever. These are not phones, they are computers shaped like phones, computer which we fully bought with our money, and I we shall install what we want on our own computers.

indeed, but they're not talking about your phone, they're talking about android, which is something you don't buy nor own, you buy a license to use it on the provider's terms. linux phones can't come soon enough ... your point about the termn "sideloading" is spot on, though. perverting the language is the first step of manipulation: installing software is "sideloading", sharing files is "piracy", legitimate resistan…

> "your point about the termn "sideloading" is spot on, though. perverting the language is the first step of manipulation [...]."

Precisely.

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

#46

Post by gruez »

la_fayette wrote: post #22
sfdlkj3jk342a wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GrapheneOS on a Pixel

Let's see what will the future of Graphene be, since Google is not publishing the device tree anymore for Pixel devices...

That's a non-issue for them: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115299586595207105

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

#47

Post by andrewl-hn »

jadbox wrote: post #44
detectivestory wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a quick glance at /r/GooglePlayDeveloper/ it looks like Google is just as interested in killing playstore apps! It seems that they only want to support the existing larger apps now. I think they are giving a clear message to developers that its not really worth developing for that platform anymore. I think we will all agree that the playstore needed a purge but they seem to be making it impossible for any new so…

I have no idea what this means. How does this change "kill playstore apps"?

Not related to this particular news item, but several high-profile App developers are either killing their apps on Android entirely (like iA Writer) or removing features due to Google tightening submission requirements and increasing costs for apps that integrate with their services.

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

#48

Post by Krssst »

mixologic wrote: post #19

If you want to install software on your Microsoft Windows computer, it has to be signed by a verified developer, otherwise you get an overridable warning that the developer cannot be verified, the software may contain malware etc. If you want to install software on you MacOS machine, the same thing applies. It must come from a verified developer with an apple account, otherwise you get a warning and must jump through…

> I just dont see a future where being able to create and publish an app anonymously is going to be supported.

This is strongly needed if surveillance laws like Chat Control are not to be trivially bypassed. This way applications that don't offer governments the required surveillance features can be banned and the developpers can be sued. Not looking forward to that.

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

#49

Post by RedComet »

viktorcode wrote: post #20
HiPhish wrote: post #4

We need to stop calling it "sideloading", we should call it freely installing software. The term "sideloading" makes it sound shady and hacky when in reality it is what we have been able to do on our computers since forever. These are not phones, they are computers shaped like phones, computer which we fully bought with our money, and I we shall install what we want on our own computers.

I call "running unsigned binaries"

They are signed, though. Just not by Google.

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

#50

Post by chasil »

HiPhish wrote: post #4

We need to stop calling it "sideloading", we should call it freely installing software. The term "sideloading" makes it sound shady and hacky when in reality it is what we have been able to do on our computers since forever. These are not phones, they are computers shaped like phones, computer which we fully bought with our money, and I we shall install what we want on our own computers.

If Google provides a permanent mechanism to disable this in developer settings, then this devolves to an inconvenience.

The setting to allow unsigned apps could be per appstore tracked by an on-device sqlite database, so a badly-behaving app will be known by its installer.

Post reply on HN