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

431–440 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#431

Post by SamDc73 »

aboringusername wrote: post #173

The only reason Google has decided to lock-down Android is because of apps like ICEblock and the ability for anonymous individuals to mass distribute information that governments do not like. Now, they'll be able to hunt you down by requesting Google hand over every ID document that they process. This sets a chilling precedent for free speech. It enables governments to go after those who dare 'speak out' by using pla…

> The only reason Google has decided to lock-down Android is because of apps like ICEblock and the ability for anonymous individuals to mass distribute information that governments do not like.

That's why the solution CAN'T be more regulation ...

Again, I don’t really see Google as a ‘moral’ or ‘pro-user’ company since they just pushed out Manifest V3. But unlike ad blockers, they’re not losing millions from sideloaded apps, so the only reason for their sudden policy shift is probably government pressure. With all the ongoing antitrust lawsuits, they’re just trying to stay on the good side of whatever the current or next administration wants.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#432

Post by cwillu »

kuhsaft wrote: post #385
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…

> Any device that doesn't have DRM will never support a paid digital marketplace

Yet here am on linux buying games on steam

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#433

Post by kuhsaft »

kuhsaft wrote: post #385
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…

It's less likely that game consoles and smartphones will become fully unlocked like personal computers. I would bet on the opposite where personal computers have the same HW/SW model as smartphones. We are already almost there with macOS SIP and Windows Secure Boot. The only thing missing is removal or isolation of root privilege escalation.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#434

Post by kazinator »

Liftyee wrote: post #336
kazinator wrote: post #187

They wanted to call it freeloading, but showed a bit of self-restraint. Whenever you side load anything, you are robbing someone's app store of income. You are not visiting their portal to be exposed to ads, you are not seeing ads in the middle of an application, you are not paying for anything. Or at least, not paying to them. The only streaming service I pay for in my household is Japanese TV, which uses a side-loa…

I bought the hardware, for the price they chose to sell it at. Why should I be obligated to use any of their services, if I can avoid it? I'm not sure if your comment is satire. So I'll respond as is. "Not providing potential further income" is not "robbing"... what is being stolen from them? Something they never had in the first place? When I lose a bet I willingly entered, am I being "robbed" of the gains? Furtherm…

> I bought the hardware, for the price they chose to sell it at. Why should I be obligated to use any of their services, if I can avoid it?

Their answer would be something like, that the hardware vendor has nothing to do with them and is also a freeloader, taking advantage of their software ecosystem to sell hardware.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#435

Post by beeflet »

kuhsaft wrote: post #385
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…

Don't prevent piracy

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#436

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

dotancohen wrote: post #79
Ajedi32 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's a pointless distraction, but it's a distraction you instigated by trying to language police your own supporters. I and most others who use the term sideloading don't use it because we want to make sideloading "feel deviant and hacker-ish", we use it because it's the commonly accepted term for installing apps outside the app store. I'm open to alternative phrasing, but "direct install" doesn't work becaus…

> and "installing" doesn't work because that doesn't distinguish from installing from the Play Store I'm not choosing sides, but why do you need a term to distinguish from installing from the Play Store? On my Debian machine I install git from apt (officially supported) but also install Anki from a tarball I downloaded from a website. Same term `install`.

> why do you need a term to distinguish from installing from the Play Store?

Because the Play Store is a proprietary ecosystem that's being often used as a political tool.

If Google starts to ban alternative stores then Android will fragment and much of the world will move to Chinese alternative OS's.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#437

Post by 9rx »

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…

> I can't help but think there might be some effect here that's locking us all in similar to how the U.S. healthcare system can't seem to shake for profit insurance.

Yup. The Amish have had no trouble implementing a single payer healthcare system in the USA. It can be done, where the people want it. But, by and large, the people really don't care. In the back of their minds they might think it would be nice to have in the same way they think it would be nice to have a muscly six pack, but when it comes down to putting in the effort to see it happen...

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#438

Post by kuhsaft »

cwillu wrote: post #432
kuhsaft wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Any device that doesn't have DRM will never support a paid digital marketplace Yet here am on linux buying games on steam

Steam is a bit different, since that originated as a PC digital marketplace before complete root-of-trust DRM from HW->bootloader->OS->SW.

If anything, I would bet on a shift where Steam on Linux requires a signed OS like Windows Secure Boot. Call of Duty and Battlefield 6 already require Windows Secure Boot.

Wait, a signed Linux OS with Secure Boot already exists. It's Android Play Protect.

Also on Linux, you only get Widevine L3, which limits video and audio quality for DRM web content.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#439

Post by yehat »

daveidol wrote: post #368
terminalshort wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> both major app stores and the massive amount of malware in them This is true, but it's also not the main vector of attack. The primary threat is that the user is intending to download $WELL_KNOWN_APP and instead downloads a compromised binary from a malicious third party and is instantly compromised. The app stores make the probability of this essentially zero.

Question: if the OS does proper app sandboxing how is this basically any different from having unrestricted access to a web browser or email? Oh no granny tapped a bad Google ad and got phished! I guess we should kill the open web and use the officially sanctioned “web store” from now on (where you have to apply, pay a fee, and of course a % commission to host a website). It’s much safer for us!

It is not funny, but this already happens. ID verification mandated in some countries already take care for that under disguise for children protection.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#440

Post by unsungNovelty »

brailsafe wrote: post #428
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…

To me this seems analogous to the motivation of certain people, as soon as they were able to work from home during the pandemic, to move to some arbitrary other cheaper place only because they were no longer required to go into the office. Specifically it's weird to me that those people, akin your statement about platforms, don't seem to have a sense of place within which they do their stuff, whether that stuff is ta…

> To me this seems analogous to the motivation of certain people, as soon as they were able to work from home during the pandemic, to move to some arbitrary other cheaper place only because they were no longer required to go into the office.

Because that is important to them. Everybody has different opinions on different things. Their priorities are different. I prioritise privacy. I had a workflow with convenience and privacy setup I can do with Android now. It had a lot of loopholes but it is something I am satisfied with. Its something I have developed it by making compromises and adjustments based on privacy, convenience and functionality. So FOR ME, it becomes valueless after this change. And the better would become iOS. So I would change.

I could also argue that yours is a boiling frog situation where you are fine with bad changes around you but you keep getting adjusted to it and making excuses.

For example, due to my privacy setup, I rarely see ads, I rarely get scam calls. There are convenience I get because of it.

All you have to think is... If whatever these companies do online... Will you be OK with it if they do it offline and in person?

Imagine I follow you everywhere and keep telling me to buy a burger from McDonalds. Stalk you around, noting everything you do. And about your family. How long will it take for you to call the cops on me or confront me? Why are you complacent when these companies do the same online? End result is literally the same. Only difference is scale and the fact that one is happening in your face while other is out of your view.

In conclusion, Everybody's threshold (like you mentioned) to different changes are different based on their views and priorities.

And most importantly, as a software professional, we definitely should hold ourselves to higher standards. I am doing what I CAN now.

Post reply on HN