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

461–470 of 646 posts

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#461

Post by heavyset_go »

poolnoodle wrote: post #452
acomjean wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That Balmer quote can be read in Trump's voice and it fits perfectly lol.

Trump embodies an archetype IMO

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#462

Post by chii »

chasing0entropy wrote: post #430
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…

"That being said, digital marketplaces and DRM have there place to prevent piracy and allow developers and creators to make a living. If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal.' This is the equivalent statement to inspecting everyone's bag at any point because they might have something illegal. It's not an acceptable move from google.

> If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal

and that someone is named Gaben, and the solution is called Steam. He has done more to solve piracy than any media empire who proportedly spent billions in law suits, lobbying and anti-circumvention ever did.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#463

Post by extraduder_ire »

blueg3 wrote: post #191
terminalshort wrote: post #42

I think this misses the forest for the trees here. The platforms behavior here is a symptom and not the core problem. I think the following are pretty clearly correct: 1. It's your damn phone and you should be able to install whatever the hell you want on it 2. Having an approved channel for verified app loading is a valuable security tool and greatly reduces the number of malicious apps installed on users devices Gi…

> Given that both of these things are obviously true, it seems like a pretty obvious solution is to just have a pop up that has a install at your own risk warning whenever you install something outside of the official app store. It is an obvious solution, and it's a good first solution. This popup already exists. A problem in security engineering is that when people are motivated (which is easy to achieve), they will…

A significant change that google implemented (announced?) for android recently was not allowing you to install software or allow "unknown sources" while on a phone call.

I think that's going to have a far more significant impact on people installing malware than developer attestation.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#465

Post by kuhsaft »

chii wrote: post #462
chasing0entropy wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That being said, digital marketplaces and DRM have there place to prevent piracy and allow developers and creators to make a living. If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal.' This is the equivalent statement to inspecting everyone's bag at any point because they might have something illegal. It's not an acceptable move from google.

> If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal and that someone is named Gaben, and the solution is called Steam. He has done more to solve piracy than any media empire who proportedly spent billions in law suits, lobbying and anti-circumvention ever did.

And Steam implements its own DRM and takes 30% from game publishers. Also, they don't stop game developers from providing their own DRM which require root-of-trust, like CoD or BF6 which require Secure Boot.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#466

Post by vladms »

kuhsaft wrote: post #438
cwillu wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 g…

Pirating is more of a problem of mismanaged price versus revenues. In the '90 in East Europe everybody was pirating because we couldn't afford any software not because "we wanted to steal". As soon as I got a decent salary I just bought the damn stuff and spared me of the headache of dealing with pirated things.

The people pushing for drastic technical measures to "prevent pirating" are probably accountants, that have no other idea of how to generate value and they imagine all "pirated content" will be converted to paid - which is not the case.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#468

Post by hexagonwin »

jorisboris wrote: post #386

> As a reminder, this applies not just to devices that exclusively use the Google Play Store: this is for every Android Certified device everywhere in the world, which encompasses over 95% of all Android devices outside of China. So what happens in China? Should we buy Chinese Android phones?

chinese phones usually don't have gapps installed, but many of them also have their bootloader locked and not unlockable.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#469

Post by TJSomething »

9rx wrote: post #450
andruby wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're saying, but I still think it's wrong to blame the people "not wanting it". The corporations and politicians are really powerful and they go far and wide to protect their profits and interests. Yes, the people could care more and could stand up for it, but it's so easy to blame them and that's exactly what the corporations & politicians want.

Maybe in some magical AGI future computers can do the work, but until then where else is the effort going to come from? It isn't going to randomly appear out of thin air, that is for sure. There is nothing else to "blame" but them. It's not the "corporations"[1] keeping you from that six pack, nor it is it keeping you from building a single payer healthcare system. Not wanting to put in the toil to make it happen wil…

I can get a six pack by doing exercises in my house everyday with some weights and resistance bands for 20 minutes a day and by spending 5 minutes a day tracking my food for a year. I don't think that there is a place I can go to make single payer health care happen, even if I spent 40 hours a week for a decade at a 60% pay cut.

Re: What we talk about when we talk about sideloading

#470

Post by sfn42 »

andruby wrote: post #448
9rx wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

I understand what you're saying, but I still think it's wrong to blame the people "not wanting it". The corporations and politicians are really powerful and they go far and wide to protect their profits and interests. Yes, the people could care more and could stand up for it, but it's so easy to blame them and that's exactly what the corporations & politicians want.

There's been plenty of politicians trying to get single payer going, people don't vote for them. You can blame propaganda and stuff but at the end of the day people choose freely who they vote for.
Post reply on HN