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

441–450 of 564 posts

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

#441

Post by rock_artist »

This will shape the future of computing with how Apple being treated as the reference for the whole industry. (I know this is Google here. But our reference devices are iDevices that was unfortunately always locked in the Apple provisioned codesign)

Our “pocket” computers are locked in. The next computing platform will be more wearable such as AR glasses. We’re expected to have 3 players in the upcoming iteration - Apple, Google. Meta due to vivid services needed for valuable glasses services. Meta already shows how you don’t really own the device by what’s running on it. It’ll be very sad if next generations most used form of computing will be able to run only border-controlled software.

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

#442

Post by mcny »

vanviegen wrote: post #301
vivalahn wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BBM itself should not have been a lock-in. It would have taken incredibly little effort to open it as a desktop messenger that can seamlessly interact with people who have BBM numbers for example. I doubt they learned their lessons. Apple walked all over them in so many ways and, if memory serves me right, they even mocked Steve Jobs over the iPhone. Edit: just so I’m clear I’m discussing it from the perspective of e…

> they even mocked Steve Jobs over the iPhone. Isn't that just doing their jobs as executives for a competitor? Though internally, one would hope they were sounding some alarm bells. Though at the time, it wasn't at all obvious that people could get used to doing relatively serious typing on a small (even tiny back then) virtual keyboard.

Time after time we believe people in important places have some higher knowledge or some deeper insight. However, more likely, they were just regular people who were in the right place at the right time. I don't think they understood what they were up against. Neither did Nokia / Microsoft with Windows Phone.

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

#443

Post by bitwize »

Pfhortune wrote: post #423
bitwize wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AOSP releases are going to stop (or become late and cursory like Darwin releases), and new Pixels will not be able to run non-Google-certified operating systems :)

> and new Pixels will not be able to run non-Google-certified operating systems :) I haven't heard about this. Source? I think there has been much _speculation_ around this, but no proof that I am aware of.

I can't confirm this yet but with Google refusing to provide device trees for new Pixels things definitely look headed that way; they're at least starting to make installing an alternate OS difficult. The Graphene devs are trying to set things up with a handset manufacturer to ship a GrapheneOS phone, but good luck connecting that thing to a US carrier (who allowlist handsets and often limit the allowlist to models they sell directly).

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

#444

Post by rkomorn »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #371
rkomorn wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, mainly: no international cost, no metered cost (other than data), no extra app like WhatsApp to install (but other party needs iOS). Edit: that said, nowadays, maybe because I'm back in the EU, I use WhatsApp way more often than iMessage.

It is easier, however, to install WhatsApp then to switch from Android to iOS.

Of course. iMessage is just a convenience when someone else has an iPhone.

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

#445

Post by Woshiwuja »

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…

[dead]

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

#446

Post by xarope »

with all these folding phones and e-ink mobile sized e-readers having gone through several generations, I'm beginning to think the next big kickstarter[0] is a dumb e-ink phone/wifi modem connected as a 5g modem to an amoled linux tablet.

[0] No royalties required if you pick up my "fantastic" idea, just send me a free device

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

#447

Post by derkades »

edg5000 wrote: post #429
WD-42 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or use the banks website from a computer? Which banks do not allow this?

The biggest bank in the Netherlands at least requires the app to confirm payments. Although they do still have these paper slips (maybe) for transfers but that cannot be used for ecommerce

ING? You can choose to receive a hardware device instead of using the app.

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

#449

Post by alex23478 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #399
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 side…

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

Google has the Google Play Services, which can be remotely updated via the Play Store, as has been done for the COVID exposure notification system [0]. Google's Play Protect already hooks into the installation process and could be updated to enforce the signatures.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_Notification

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

#450

Post by jolmg »

edg5000 wrote: post #429
WD-42 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or use the banks website from a computer? Which banks do not allow this?

The biggest bank in the Netherlands at least requires the app to confirm payments. Although they do still have these paper slips (maybe) for transfers but that cannot be used for ecommerce

> Although they do still have these paper slips (maybe) for transfers

Are you describing checks?

Post reply on HN